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

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

3). The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of disallowance of claim\nunder section 54F of the Act, made by the Assessing officer which is beyond the scope\nof limited scrutiny under CASS.\nITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16\nDushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO\n(4) The assessee craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete

SMT. JANKI KISHAN HINGORANI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

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.

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from

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.

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from

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

54F of the Act. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 13th December 2017. 5. Subsequently, the learned Pr. CIT found that the valuer without adopting realistic approach or scientific method valued the property at unrealistic value

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

House, Near Alfrid High Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot School, Panchnath, Rajkot, Gujarat – 360001 PAN/GIR No.: AEKPM5996B (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Brijesh Parekh, AR राज" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026 आदेश /ORDER

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

3 5. The ld.AO was not satisfied with the calculation made by the appellants. He referred the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market cost of the property in F.Y.2001-02. The DVO has reported the cost of construction in F.Y.2001-02 at Rs.24,33,000/-. The ld.AO did not accept this cost of construction on the ground that since

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

3 5. The ld.AO was not satisfied with the calculation made by the appellants. He referred the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market cost of the property in F.Y.2001-02. The DVO has reported the cost of construction in F.Y.2001-02 at Rs.24,33,000/-. The ld.AO did not accept this cost of construction on the ground that since