THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

transfer of property by way of Cancellation Deed and provisions of section 50C are applicable. Considering these facts, AO adopted JANTRI value as on the date of Cancellation Deed for Rs.7,06,00,000/- as fair market value of the property and made addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,99,62,674/- in the hands

JIVABHAI MADHABHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

price of the land while calculating the Long Term Capital Gain and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming such action of AO, such cost of acquisition and indexation thereof is requested to be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an individual, did not file any return of income for the year under

SHRI DILIP MANIBHAI PRAJAPATI,DHOLKA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) 1, Shitalnath Society Ahmedabad. Opp: Aath Gam Patel Wadi, Saroda Road Kalikund Dhoka 382 225 Pan : Acspp 9801 C

price for which it was purchased being Rs.2,01,00,000/-. He contended that since this matter had already been considered by the DVO in the case of third co- purchaser of the property, finding no material difference in the actual consideration for which the property was purchased, and its fair market value, the authorities below had erred in considering

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

50C in as much as what is transferred is neither land nor building, it is the shares of a private limited company. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given reasonable justification in the sale consideration Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 4 of 7 received between two class of shareholders. One class of shareholders were also the tenants

CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall

SHRI DILIP DEVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-1(2) NOW THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

50C is applicable only to “capital asset”. Similar provision applicable for transfer of “assets other than capital asset” is introduced by Section 43CA of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Hence, the Assessing Officer in order to justify the reopening of the case has taken erroneous contention that income arising from the subject land is taxable as “income from business

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price was below the stamp duty valuation. It was held that the AO had been directed by the earlier 263 order to specifically address this issue, but had failed to take the appropriate action by not waiting for the DVO report and simply accepting the returned income. In these facts, PCIT held that the AO should have provisionally adopted

RINKI SHASHIKANT GANDHI,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

Section 50C without issuing proper notice or providing an opportunity for the appellant to submit a valuation report. Ground 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that sale consideration was not paid in 2005. Ld. CIT (A) ignored the sale deed dtd. 09/02/2005 wherein page 9 & 10 clearly mention payment cheque number and amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 7.2 It is found that the assessee had disclosed all the material facts and explanation

THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL & CO.,, KHEDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing is concerned with the determination of Arm's Length Price of the specified domestic transactions carried out by the assessee? 5. The appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

price difference\nbetween the rate of cost of acquisition, with the assessee taking the rate of\n250 per square meter as against the rate of ₹11.30 per square meter taken by\nthe Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no viable\njustification of such a huge cost of acquisition taken by the assessee. Further,\nthe assessee could

M/S. SHARNAM REALITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S.Sharnam Realities P.Ltd. Pr.Cit-4 411A, Neelkanth Palace B Vs Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Road Satellite 380 015. Pan : Aaics 9152 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Ar & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

price at which the property was ultimately sold by the assessee. He drew our attention to para 3.1 and 3.2 of his order in this regard as under: “3.1 To ascertain the contentions as made in the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and as mentioned above, I have carefully perused the contents of the sale deed made

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account