AMUL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, ANAND

price of the property sold. Section 50C(1) provides that, "Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

SHRI BHAVESHBHAI O. LAKHANI,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us. Bhaveshbhai O Lakhani Vs. Ito Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 Of 9

price of the property sold. Section 50C(1) provides that, "Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

price realized is less. Further the Valuation Officer has valued the same rate for the Terrace area sold. Therefore the valuation arrived by the Valuation Officer is not correct. The above objection was overruled by the Assessing Officer and determined the Long Term Capital Gain as Rs. 11,93,809/- and demanded tax thereon. I.T.A No. 1353/Ahd/2019

SHRI AMRUTBHAI ATMARAMBHAI PATEL, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no 1 of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose, ground no

transfer of a land or building is less than the value adopted or assessed\by any authority of State Government (read "Stamp Valuation Authority") for the purpose of payment of Stamp Duty, the value so assessed shall be taken to be the full value of consideration received for the purpose of section 48. As detailed above, the AO has taken

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KETABEN JANAKBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

price of Rs. 8,15,000/-. The purchase deed was registered on 19.12.2006. The said plot was sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- along-with two other persons. Stamp duty of Rs.24,44,500/- was paid on such transaction. The Assessee's share was of 60%. The conveyance deed was executed

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

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of Rs. 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged Rs. 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of Rs. 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged Rs. 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including

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

LOVY RANKA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us, But Then, As Is The Settled Legal Position, When A Reference Is Made To The Dvo, The Assessing Officer Has A Duty To “So Far As The Valuation Of The Asset In Question Is Concerned, Proceed To Complete The Assessment In Conformity With The Estimate Of The Valuation Officer”. The Question Then Arises Whether We Can Deal With The Question Of Correctness Of The Dvo’S Report- Particularly When The Assessing Officer Apparently Has No Say In This Regard.

transfer. 5. It is sufficient, for our purposes, to take note of the fact that the provisions of Section 23A(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, “shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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

MANISHA RITHESBHAI SONI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2450/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 50C further provides that where an assessee raises a dispute about adoption of value determined by the stamp valuation authority, for the purpose of charging stamp duty, the reference will be made to the DVO for determining fair market value of the property on the date of transfer. The assessee has raised all these pleas though not specific pleading

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

SMT. DAXABEN ANILKUMAR THAKKAR,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1936/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Smt Daxaben Anilkumar Thakkar, D.C.I.T., 55, Gandhi Gunj, Vs. Central Circle-2, Near Borsad Bus Stand, Baroda. Borsad-388540. Pan: Aaqpt3444B

transferred at less than Jantri rate. Hence the same amount to concealment of income. Further if the proceeding u/s 153A would not have been carried out then the same should have escaped from tax. Accordingly the AO levied the penalty of Asstt. Year 2009-10 3 Rs. 17,952/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded rounded

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

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer, as discussed above, between the market price and actual price requires due consideration for quantifying the loss arising from the sale of shares. 10.6 We also note that there is no provision under the Act prescribing the guidelines for pricing of the shares unlike the provisions contained under section 50C

SHRI GOVINDBHAI VITHALBHAI MORADIYA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as stated above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

transfer" Accordingly, the sale value of the said land is considered at Rs. 2,76,02,040/- instead of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- u/s. 50C of the Act and 12.5% of the said value works out to Rs. 34,50,255/- which is the consideration deemed to be received by the assessee on account of the land sold

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

transfer, as discussed above, between the market price and actual price requires due consideration for quantifying the loss arising from the sale of shares. ITA nos.834-986/AHD/2012 & No.3462-Ahd-2014 Asstt. Year 2008-09 15 10.6 We also note that there is no provision under the Act prescribing the guidelines for pricing of the shares unlike the provisions contained under section 50C