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 by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter Ramesh Govindbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

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

3. The assessee before us is a charitable trust duly registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold a piece of land to Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. The price at which land was sold was Rs.3,600/- per square meter and this price was agreed

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

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 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

section 50C of the act. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has referred page I.T.A No. 1737/Ahd/2015 & 118/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 6 Ritaben P Patel & Amrutbhai A. Patel vs. ITO no. 147 of the assessee’s paper books indicating that name of the assessee was included as a party to the agreement only included

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.

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

3 ACIT Vs. Shri Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Pate extracts, hence he along with two co-owners cancelled Sale Deed dated 01-05-2006 and they were compelled to pay stamp duty of Rs.1.03 crore. The assessee further submitted that he has not actually transferred any property as per provisions of section 45 r.w.s

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

3 the difference was taxed amounting to Rs.65,54,400/- in terms of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 5. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the stamp duty valuation of Rs.3,32,64,000/- pertained to that of Non Agricultural Land, which

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

3. Pertinently, Section 48 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows- 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such

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

3. In the next ground of appeal, the assessee has contended that ld.Revenue authorities ought to have made a reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act before determining the capital gain taxable in the case of the assessee with the help of section 50C of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

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

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”. The Ld. AR submitted that from the return of income filed

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

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

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