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

54B of the Act. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has shown the actual sale consideration of Rs. 18,66,601 as against stamp duty valuation at Rs. 35,50,950. Thus, there

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT vs. JAYSINH GULABSINH BODANA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Surat. 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No. 17/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.410/Srt/2019] Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Surat. Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/06/2022 15/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

54B of the Act. We have gone through the findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that ld CIT(A) has passed speaking order considering both sides. The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, ITA 410/SRT/2019 & CO.17/SRT/2021/AY.2015-16 Jaysinh Gulabsinh Bodana correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

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

54B of the Act, calculated the LTCG at Rs.61,52,225/-. 11.Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before the Bench that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, under section 55A of the Act is erroneous. The ld Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is defective and biased

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

price of rate. The value estimated by Government Register Valuer estimated at Rs.1600/- per square meter is more reasonable. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that to avoid the further dispute, an average of value estimated by DVO as well as Government Registered Valuer may be considered for the purpose of addition u/s 50C of the Act. Before

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI GAJERA,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1522/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Gajera, Surat. 153, Vaikunthdham Society, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abapg3846B (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

54B in the absence of documentary evidence on the ground that assessee produced purchase agreement of new agricultural land before Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that no such evidence was produced before the Assessing Officer and he admitted this evidence without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the same and to give his comments thereon