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

price is taken at Rs.14,616/- instead of Rs.8,605/- disclosed by the assessee. Thus, the LTCG worked out at Rs.29,01,710/- instead of Rs.15,98,578/- disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.29,01,710/- as LTCG. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.1,72,635/- towards income from other sources

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CAWAS DARASHA KARAKA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT\nMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 499/Ahd/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nIncome-Tax Officer,\nWard-3(3)(12),\nAhmedabad\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nLate Shri Cawas Darasha\nKaraka, Legal Heir M/s.\nCawas Karaka Trust,\n22, Teen Murti Bungalows,\nNr. Devang Bungalows,\nThaltej, Ahmedabad-380054\n[PAN : AGSPK 9616 L]\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by :\nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &\nShri Parimalsinh H. Parmar, ARs\nRespondent by:\nAdjournment applica

price paid or promised, or of\nmoney, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered\nperiodically or on specified occasions to the transfer by the transferee, who\naccepts the transfer on such terms.\n2.\nIt is most humbly submitted that the land admeasuring 3 acres and\n33 gunthas was demised by the said

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

transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order is partly allowed.” 6. Similar line of reasoning and directions are given in the case of Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Bangadiwala. The sole issue which has been agitated before me is that the ld.AO was not justified in determining the value

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

transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order is partly allowed.” 6. Similar line of reasoning and directions are given in the case of Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Bangadiwala. The sole issue which has been agitated before me is that the ld.AO was not justified in determining the value

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

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

55A of the Act provides a clear\nmechanism for the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation\nOfficer if he is not satisfied with the value adopted by the assessee. However,\nin the present case, the Assessing Officer did not invoke this provision and\ninstead determined the FMV arbitrarily on the basis of a single sale instance,\nwithout

MEENABEN NARENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 143/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Shri Apurva Narendra Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Ward-6(1)(4), Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Agcpp7272M 2. 142/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Meenaben Narendrabhai Income Tax Patel, Officer, 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Ward-6(1)(4), Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1762L 3. 144/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Mitesh Narendrabhai Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1777K

Transfer expenses Rs.2,50,000/- (iii) Indexed cost Rs.7,850/- Rs.97,91,355/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs.1,52,96,645/- 7.2 The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the valuer in his report for valuing the land in dispute as on 1 April 1981 has adopted

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

55A. The assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not applicable as it applied only to Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– individuals and HUFs, and not to partnership firms, and cited relevant case law in support. Even if the provision was deemed applicable, the AO had complied with his legal duty by referring

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

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

55A of the Act, specifically from the\nDistrict Valuation Officer (DVO) vide report numbers D.T. 26/12/2017 and\nNo. 6 (25)/VO-1/2017-18/873. The DVO had determined the cost of the land\nas on 01.04.1981 at Rs.5,96,000/-, and after applying the indexation benefit,\nthe indexed cost was computed at Rs.15,25,760/-. The assessee reiterated that\nthe valuation had been

KAILASH JAGDISH SACHDEV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 INTE.TAXA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

transfer of " 90,000/- and cost of acquisition at " 77,48,905/-. During the course of assessment, the AO referred to the assessment order passed in the case of one of the co-sellers of the aforesaid property (Smt. Ved Kumari) by ITO, Ward 2(1), Gurgaon. The AO of the co-seller observed that in the valuation report