VISHAL NAVINCHANDRA SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 50C and make an addition of Rs. 23,26,000/- to Long Term Capital Gain. During the assessment proceedings

KALINDI JAYENDRA RANPARA RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

capital gain from sale of property. provisions of section 50C and section 142A of the Act are relevant with regard

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

Capital Gain by invoking section 50C of Act. Dilip Kantilal Kubavat 7.In response, the assessee had submitted its reply before

DENISH KHODIDAS PATEL,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

capital gain by taking sale consideration of above referred property at Rs. 21,00,000/-, being 6% of total sale consideration declared in the sale deed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has simply accepted assessee's submission without due verification and inquiry and not made any addition in this regard. Considering the value of the property

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

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

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

capital gains is available to the assessee irrespective of the consideration value adopted under a deeming fiction such as Sec 50C. In other words, full and true effect to a deduction provision should be granted by considering that Sec. 50C and Sec. 54B are distinct provisions operating in their separate fields.” 2.3. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 50C for computation of capital gains, which was clearly unsustainable. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the case of Umesh

NARMADABEN RAJIVBHAI UGHREJA,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

section 50c, should be considered. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 44,44,504 towards Long-Term Capital Gains

RASILABEN BHARAT PARMAR,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.923/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rasilaben Bharat Parmar The Ito, Ward-2(1) बनाम Block No.1252, Narayannagar Jamnagar. Opp: Gulabnagar Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Ckvpp 5590 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Sainicaptioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 08.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 01.03.2022. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal, Pertains To Addition Of Rs. 7,60,800/-, Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), On Account Of Long-Term Capital Gain.

capital gain. Shri Rasilaben Bharat Parmar ITA No.923 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2015-16) 2 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and has filed the Return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16, on 28/02/2017, declaring total income of Rs.1,79,230/-, which was processed by the Department

SMT. MUMTAJBANU A. JIVANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

50C of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2018,which section required substitution of the actual sale consideration received on sale of land with its stamp duty value where found higher for the purposes of computing capital gain

RANCHODBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI DHAMI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 431/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami. Vs. Ito Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. M. N. Manvar & Co. Ca, 504, Star Plaza, Nr. Circuit House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/05/2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1). Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Short Term Capital Gain Made By Ao Rs. 29,56,695/- U/S 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Income In The Nature Of Business

capital gain made by AO Rs. 29,56,695/- u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act) for the income in the nature of business ITA-431/RJT/2024 (AY-2012-13) Ranchhodbhai Vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. Rs. 1,22,770/- from sale of industrial plots jointly owned by the appellant and other 4 (Four

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain

HARPALSINH PRUTHVISINH GOHIL,HARPALNIVAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(5), RAJKOT

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

capital gain\" without establishing any cogent\nmaterial OR evidence to justify such addition and by merely relying upon\nconjectures, surmises, and presumptions.\n3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the rejection of explanations\nand documentary evidences and additional evidences submitted by the appellant,\nwithout assigning any cogent reasons and without pointing out any infirmity\ntherein

AAMNABEN GAFAR MADKIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(10), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.761/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Amana Gafar Madakiya Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar, Ghela Patel Delo, Head Post Aaykar Bhawan, Nr Subhas Office, Ghachiwad, Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Jamnagar-361001 Highway, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bylpm2878L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per A. L. Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 07.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 30/03/2022, U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

section 147 of the Income-tax Act1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” in short) for scrutiny on the following reasons: ITA No. 761/Rjt/24 (AY 2013-14) Amana Gafar Madakiya "The following information in respect of sale of immovable property (on the issue of 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961) was received: REGESTRATION STAMP RG NO MARKET DATE VALUE

KISHOR K KASTA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act will be applicable in the assessee`s case, under consideration. The assessee has not declared any income under the head capital gains