SHRI NANDKISHORE RAMANLAL PARIKH HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 490/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nandkishore Ramanlal Parikh- Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) Huf Vs Ahmedabad. Chitrakut F.P.390 Bh. Shakuntal Complex C.N.Vidyalay Road Ambawadi, Ellisbridge Amedabad 380 006. Pan : Aaghn 0923 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Lalit P. Jain, Sr.Dr

Price (Own share) 90,00,000 2. Date of sale 25/02/2013 3. Cost of property as on 2,16,837/- 01/04/81 (as per assessee) 4. Indexed cost 18,47,451 ITA No.490 /Ahd/2017 5. Cost of property as on 2,07,050 01/04/81 (as per AO) 7 Indexed cost 17,64,066 7 Amount deposited in capital

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

price and the cost of acquisition without taking the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. Further, the Act in this regard does not provide any distinction between the residential house used for residence as capital asset or as the trading asset.” 9. From the above we find, that the ld. PCIT has dismissed the assessee’s contention of the property

NITIN BHAILALBHAI THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nitin Bhailalbhai Thakkar, The Acit, C/O. Jagdish Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs Circle 1(1)(2), Ramji Mandir Pole, Kothi Road, Baroda Raopura, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Abapt 7939 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2022

54F of the Act. The said Explanation read as under: "Net consideration", in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer Nitin Bhailalbhai Thakkar Vs. ACIT AY : 2011-12 3 of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively

NIRANJAN HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, INT.TAX-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

Transfer Pricing) holding the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passed without application of mind and proper inquiry without verification of facts. Accordingly, Ld. CIT set aside the matter to the file of the ld. A.O. with the direction to make fresh assessment. 3. During

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

transfer of shares and its price is mutually decided among family members as per family arrangement and there was restriction on sale of shares. All the shares of Chamanlal Mehta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. has been taken over by Victoria Capital Venture Limited. The Assessing Officer observed that the index value of each share has to be taken at Rs.107.45

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be] had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June 1988 the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as hail not been considered and decided

PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price plus incidental Pravinsinh Bhawansinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– acquisition expenses. Thus, this ground was partly allowed. The subsequent ground related to deduction under section 54F of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished the registered sale deed and payment details for purchase of a residential flat. After verification, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee

KOTHARI SANJAY MANILAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 698/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19)

price and until the said amount is paid by the society, each and every member will have the ownership right upon the property of the society allotted to him and from the date of making full payment of the said amount by the society, the allottee right of the members shall be relinquished and transferred in favour of the society

SHRI RAJAT B. MEHTA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTL. TAXN.), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be nil; or ………. (Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us; other parts of section 54 not reproduced as the same are not relevant for our purposes) 8. It is in this backdrop that the question that we have to essentially take

SHRI BALKRISHNA P.TRIVEDI,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-III,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 54EC i.e. within 6 months (i.e. 08.06.2007) of transfer appellant has made investment in REC bonds and provision for ceiling limit is effective w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and before that the appellant has made investment of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 31.03.2007. 8. I have considered the arguments of learned A.R. The amendment is made w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and therefore the same

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI BIPIN BABUBHAI PANCHAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

54F deduction. In fact, the Assessing Officer Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 5 became obliged as per the direction of Section 263 and PCIT’s invocation and, therefore, the CIT(A) should have taken cognisance of the same. Ld. DR further submitted that as relates to ground no.2, the CIT(A) erred in accepting the sale price

DINESHKUMAR BUDHABHAI CHAUHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

transfer and the transaction is perfectly honest and bonafide and, in fact/ in fulfillment of a contractual obligation, the assessee, who has sold the property, should be liable to pay tax on capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him? It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income, which has neither arisen

KUM.KULSUM ABDULRAZAK BANGADIWALA,BARODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

54F of the Act while calculating the capital gain as the appellant had failed to prove that the construction of new house after the purchase of land at Lakodara was made within three years from the date on which the property was sold or transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph

MOHMMAD AFAQUE ABDULRAZAK BANGDIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

54F of the Act while calculating the capital gain as the appellant had failed to prove that the construction of new house after the purchase of land at Lakodara was made within three years from the date on which the property was sold or transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph

SHRI DEVENDRASINGH A. JADEJA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

price to carry out the sale deed of the remaining land. The sale deed of 492 sq. yards was eventually made on 20th July, 2011 at a revised purchase consideration of Rs.9,36,000/-. The assessee sold the aforesaid land of 700 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs.35 Lakhs in FY 2011-12 relevant