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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious & erroneous.” ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 wherein long term capital gain

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

section 55A(a) which has been brought on the statue books w.e.f 1.07.2012. Whether we should read the amendment in the context of transactions which have happened on or after 1.07.2012 and which are liable for capital gains

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

section 55A(a) which has been brought on the statue books w.e.f 1.07.2012. Whether we should read the amendment in the context of transactions (AY 2013-14) which have happened on or after 1.07.2012 and which are liable for capital gains

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

section 55A(a) which has been brought on the statue books w.e.f 1-7-2012. Whether we should read the amendment in the context of transactions which have happened on or after 1-7-2012 and which are liable for capital gains

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

section 55A(a) which has been brought on the statue books w.e.f 1.07.2012. Whether we should read the amendment in the context of transactions which have happened on or after 1.07.2012 and which are liable for capital gains

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains under section 54G of the Act. Therefore, on same analogy, the amount utilized for investment in land would be eligible for deduction under L/h Late Manishbhai Gajjar Smt.Ilaben Manishbhai v. ITO-WD-6(3) Surat /I.T.A. No.1335 & 1336/Ahd/2016/A.Y:11-12 Page 15 of 17 section 54B of the Act. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal

CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this Chapter, the [Assessing] Officer may refer the valuation of capital asset to a Valuation Officer— (a) in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer

THE WAGRA TALUKA CO. OPERATIVE MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Wagra Taluka Co-Operative I.T.O. Marketing & Processing Society Ward 1(5), Vs. Limited, Bharuch. At & Post:Wagra, Taluka- Wagra, District - Bharuch (Gujarat). M. No. 8128950676 E.Mail: Mrmconsultants@Yahoo.Com Pan: Aaaat 2404 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain. The ld CIT(A) held that reference under section 142A is perfectly as per law. 6. On the ground that section 55A

SHRI BALVANTBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Shri Balvantbhai Narottambhai Patel, I.T.O. 129, Kesariu Faliyu Masma Olpad, Ward 2(2)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Bkapp 1881 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain of Rs. 75,000 was offered by assessee in the return of income. The Assessing officer on perusal of valuation report, was of the view that the registered valuer has shown the value at the higher side as on 01/4/1981. The Assessing Officer made reference to district valuation officer (DVO) under Section 55A

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 55A(a) is not competent and report received in such reference cannot be relied. 20. Considering the consistent decision of Tribunal which was passed by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of land as per registered valuer’s report and computed the capital gain

MUKESH A. PATEL,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.706/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh A Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi Ambalal Ni Wadi, Station Road, Vs. Nr. College Killa Pardi, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bjhpp 0041 D (Appellant ) (Respondent)

capital gain, the value of immovable property determined by the District Valuation Officer as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 5,82,083/- should be adopted or valuation done by Registered Valuer of the assessee at Rs. 18,51,000/- should be adopted? First of all, let us go through the provisions of section 55A

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

capital gain by sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 27,34,500/- as per report of departmental valuation officer as against addition of ₹ 65,91,837/-made by assessing officer under section 50C of Income tax Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming action

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT vs. M/S. I.P. PATEL & CO.,, SURAT

In the result appeal of Ilaben K

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

capital ITA No.781,784 & 785/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2011-12 gain assessable in the hands of each assessee according to their share in the property. 4. Appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. Before me Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the appellant