NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

ANILKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

SHRI VIRENDRA NATWARLAL JARIWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala The Dy. Commissioner Of D-10/11, Aenav Complex-C, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs City Light Road, Surat. Surat-495003. Pan : Aachj7085E Applicant Respondent Shri Sudhir Natwarlal Jariwala Ito, Ward-3(1)(5), (Huf), 6/2578, Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Rampura, Surat-495003. Majuragate, Surat. Pan : Aaehs3103G Applicant Respondent

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

SMT.KAUSHIKABEN NIMESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [Pan: Biypp 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.07.2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value" was substituted

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

16A of that Act. [Explanation 1].—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

KIRANKUMAR RAMANLAL NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)." 14. The aforesaid provisions are as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-7-2012 wherein in clause (a), for "is less than its fair market value

MUKESHBHAI RAMUBHAI AHIR,,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-1(3) (3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir Ito, Ward-1(3)(3), 49,-B, Ambanagar, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs B/H Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Bhatar, Surat-395002. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aqqpa1546H Applicant Respondent

Gain (LTCG) on the basis of rate suggested by DVO. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act of Rs. 13,75,300/-, thus, the AO after granting set off of deduction under section 54B made addition of Rs. 92,22,624/-. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidence and furnished

RAMANBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such

HEENABEN BALUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such

PARESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such

NEETABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such

BALUBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such

SEEMABEN PARESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors, such