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

property is made within the time limit of Section 139(4) of the Act, the deduction under Section 54F of the Act is allowable. In fact, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao, reported in (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka HC) was basically relied upon. Some other judgments observing

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

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

House Property. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs.10,28,919/- by denying the benefits of exemption u/s.54F. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee

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

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

section 54F of the Act, made by the Assessing officer which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny under CASS. ITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Dushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO (4) The assessee craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled

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

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

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 the assessees themselves have shown cost of construction at Rs.14,55,751/- therefore this cost is accepted and he accordingly computed capital gain in each hand of the assessee

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

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 the assessees themselves have shown cost of construction at Rs.14,55,751/- therefore this cost is accepted and he accordingly computed capital gain in each hand of the assessee

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