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

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

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

MAUNANG FARMS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),(NOW ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price [In favour of revenue] Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gain - Special Provision for computing full value consideration in certain cases - Assessment year 2009-10 -Where value adopted and assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority under subsection (1) of section 50C was disputed by assessee in appeal, revision and even before High Court, assessee could not avail

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

RAMESH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

price of sale deed executed in 2006 and such amount is paid by original owners. These facts clearly prove that Title of the land was not clear which is accepted by original owners of the land. On perusal of 7/12 and 8 extracts as submitted before AO and appellate proceedings, that land was never transferred in the name of appellant