M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

section 45(2) of the Act, post-\npones the assessment of such capital gains to the year in which the stock-in-\ntrade is actually sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee. In the assessee`s\ncase the said converted property is sold/transferred in the year under\nconsideration and the Assesses has rightfully disclosed as capital gains along\nwith disclosing

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

section 54F viz. whether the assessee has deposited capital gain amount in the specified capital gain tax account and the whether

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

section 54F viz. whether the assessee has deposited capital gain amount in the specified capital gain tax account and the whether

SMT. KUSUMBEN AMRITLAL SANGHAVI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

capital gain scheme before purchase of the residential property before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is this that the appellant is not entitled for ITA No. 194/Rjt/2019 (Smt. Kusumben A. Sanghavi vs. DCIT) A. Y. 2015-16 - 3- exemption under Section 54F

BHARATBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ Prop Of M/S.Pushpam Circle-2 Vs. Creation Rajkot Mehul Textile Nagar Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adppp 6615 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.Dr

capital gain, claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 2,21,902/- for the purchase of residential building amounting to Rs. 18,90,140/- only. However, on verification of the sale deed, it was found that the said property is in the name of his wife i.e. Smt. Pushpaben Bharatbhai Bhuva. 6. As per the provision of section

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

capital gain also claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO in the assessment

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

capital gain income of ₹ 12,18,418.00. 16.1. The assessee further purchased 4 pieces of land at green woods bearing plot numbers 4, 5, 8 and 9 vide purchase agreement dated 31st January 2009 and 31st March 2009 for Rs. 16,21,500.00. The assessee subsequently constructed one small room in the corner of these plots during the year

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

gain computation considering the jantri value as sales consideration of Rs 50,63,325/- (@6.95% of 7,28,53,600) and after deducting indexed cost of purchase (Rs 35,19,278) and deduction u/s 54B of the Act (Rs 27,13,863) resulting in capital loss of Rs 11,69,816/-. Further it is seen that you have sold

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.

54F etc. 8. The said section requires that the capital gain on sale of agricultural land should be utilized for purchase

MAVJI DHANJI JADVA,,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTER.TAXA.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

capital gain shown by both the assessees in their returns of income. 11. It emerges out from the record that the assessees have raised additional grounds of appeal with regard to their claim under section 54F

SMT.AMARBAI DHANJI JADAVA,,BHUJ-KUTCH. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTER.TAXA.),, GANDHIDHAM.

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

capital gain shown by both the assessees in their returns of income. 11. It emerges out from the record that the assessees have raised additional grounds of appeal with regard to their claim under section 54F

PARAS MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain to that extent last year. Therefore, the net investment made was only Rs. 86,19,297/-. Thus, the claim of Rs. 1,01,04,063/- u/s 54F during the year is excessive to the externt of Rs 14,84,766/- (Rs. 1,01,04,063 – Rs. 86,19,297). Therefore, the assessing officer held that the assessee