TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 06-04-2021. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 10-12-2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 21,32,35 430/-. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings based on the seized materials particularly incriminating digital images and WhatsApp chats retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Dhaval Arvind Teli, a land broker, the AO noticed that transactions pertaining to land situated at Makarba, Survey No 686/1+2+3/2(2072) owned by Shri Amitbhai Shah and Smt. Deepaben Shah, were reflected. These materials indicated that the land was sold to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 39.86 crores, out of which Rs. 20 crores was paid through banking channels as per the registered sale deed dated 20-07-2017 and the balance amount was stated to have been paid in cash. 2.2. In his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 25-11-2019, Shri Dhaval Teli categorically stated that he had brokered the deal of land admeasuring 5000 sq. yds situated at Makarba and facilitated the transaction between Amit Shah and the assessee. Further, he confirmed that the total deal value was Rs. 39,86,65,000/- comprising cheque payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority or DVO should be ignored. The appellant's contention is found to be considered in view of the following decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad on the similar issue as under:- i) The Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad, in the case of Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad, ITA No. 395/Ahd/2022 dated 01.03.2023. (ii) The Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayshriben Bharatbhai Patel vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara, ITA No. 449/Ahd/2020 dated 02.12.2022. (iii) The Hon'ble ITAT, "SMC" Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Maunang Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(4), Ahmedabad, ITA No. 110/Ahd/2024 (Α.Υ. 2012-13). (iv) The recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of DCIT Central Circle-1(2) vs. GSG Abode LLP vide IT(SS)A 21/Ahd/2024 and others vide order dated 18.09.2025. 5.9. In the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad referred above, the AO relied solely on the DVO's report prepared four years after the sale transaction (valuation done in 2022 for sale deed transaction dt. 30.10.2018) and made addition treating the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unals, including Jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT vs. GSG Abode LLP & Ors. Order dated 18-09-2025). In that decision, the Tribunal held that even a variation up to 10% to 15% between the DVO's estimated fair market value and the declared sale price must be ignored, as such differences are attributable to inherent estimation disparities and cannot, by themselves, give rise to any presumption of understatement of consideration or receipt of on-money. The Tribunal further observed that where the valuation by the DVO is carried out several years after the transaction and reflects subsequent developments or improvements in the property, such higher valuation cannot form the basis for addition under section 69 of the Act In the present case, the DVO had undertaken valuation years after the transaction, during which time the property had undergone material changes naturally resulting in a higher estimated value. Therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision and jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad decision supra a difference of only 6.42% between the DVO's valuation and the registered sale value is well within the acceptable tolerance limit of valuation, method....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly 50% of the donation, i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/-, had been claimed in the return of income u/s 80G of the Act, and not the entire donation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The AO's finding with respect to the effective date of registration of the donee trust u/s 12AA cannot be disregarded. The order dated 24-11-2017 specifically records that the registration was operative from 31-05-2017. Therefore, the donation made on 07-04-2017 falls outside the period of eligibility. At the same time, it is also a matter of record that the appellant in the return of income, had restricted its claim to Rs. 2,50,000/- being 50% of the donation amount in accordance with the section 80G of the Act. Therefore the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 2,50,000/- only, being the actual amount claimed by the appellant in the return of income. The balance disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000/-is hereby deleted. The ground of appeal No.2 is partly allowed." 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1) "In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,28,30,000/- u/....