M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

Capital Gain computed after applying provision of Section 50C of the act at Rs.78,04,301/-. It was contended by the assessee before the assessing officer that no addition should be made u/s 50C of the Act by way of applying the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority as the alleged industrial land was a disputed land

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

capital gain and deduction as claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer after due application of mind after reducing the selling expenses, accepted the contention of the appellant. 2.4] The reason for issuance of the notice under section 263 of the Act and its reply by the appellant is as under:- S.No Reason for issuance

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

section 50C of the Act and, therefore, the long term capital gain was wrongly claimed and the amount was treated as income from other sources. 9.2 The appellant has submitted that a land at Lalghati, Bhopal, was acquired by his father which was transferred in the name of his mother on father’s death. The mother executed a will

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub- section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2)(1), Mumbai (2019) 104 taxmann.com 208 (Bombay) to\ncontend that the provision of section 50C must be given full effect; that the\nprovision of section 50C is relevant not only for computation of capital gain

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

capital gain. The assessee 2 Dr. Liyakat Ali Kapadia ITA 668 of 2017 sold a piece of land for a total consideration of Rs.15 lacs. The assessee furnished the sale deed of the land. As per registry, the sale value of the land was at Rs.15 lacs. The stamp valuation authorities assessed the value of land at Rs.26

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned ITO treating the land as capital asset determined Net LTCG to the tune of Rs.41,13,018/- and over ruled the contention of appellant that the subject land is not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Thus, the whole controversy

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

capital gain account scheme in the bank. Subsequently assessee purchased a new residential house for Rs. 2,02,15,584/- on 19.08.2016, thus assessee has invested in new residential property more than the sale consideration adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities, hence LTCG if worked out as per the provisions of section 50C

M/S OMPRAKASH MITTAL,INDORE vs. ITO 2(2), INDORE

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain at Rs. Page 5 of 9 M/s Omprakash Mittal Assessment year 2017-18 11,38,020. Section 50C is a deeming provision wherein the fair market value for sale consideration received on an asset is deemed to be taken as per the value assessed or adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of stamp duty

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2 may either be amended or\nraised on or before the date of hearing\n3. That Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. a.o. for\ninvoking the provisions grounds of appeal of section 50c of the act\nignoring the provisions of amended section 50c with proviso and\nconsidered the deemed sale 3 proceed of properties

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

2), the AO made an addition of Rs. 20130880/- u/s 50C of the act on the basis of valuation officer report, the assessing officer determined long term capital gain after reducing Rs. 67,58,003/-which the assessee has already disclosed as long term capital gain. On the analysis of the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

2: 14. In this Ground, the issue involved is the addition of Rs. 68,79,170/- made by Ld. AO by way of short-term capital gain by invoking section 50C

BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

capital gain of Rs. 1,29,73,500/- ignoring the consideration shown in documents of transfer of land and in the ITR filed by the appellant in response to notice issued u/s 148. Ground5. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order without applying the provisions of Section 50C(2

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. SMT. SMITA PANDEY, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Smt. Smita Pandey, Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. E-2/182, Arera Colony, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Adlpp5384Q Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 27.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 2(14) of the Income tax act hence capital gain on such land is not attracted. For reference, Copy of certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat is enclosed herewith. Sir, it is further submitted that the assessee wants to show this transaction in her return but in return there is column for sale of capital assets only and hence

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain, copy of purchase and sale deed of property, expenses relating to transfer of property. The entire details including the bank statement as submitted by the assessee before the ITO is appearing from Page Nos. 63 to 82 of the Paper Book filed before us. In fact, Page 63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain, copy of purchase and sale deed of property, expenses relating to transfer of property. The entire details including the bank statement as submitted by the assessee before the ITO is appearing from Page Nos. 63 to 82 of the Paper Book filed before us. In fact, Page 63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

section 50C. This value has not been disputed either by Ld. AO or by Ld. 17 Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 Pr.CIT. 2 Less: Indexed Cost of 4,26,000 Acquisition (FY 1981-1982) Not disputed either by Ld. 3 Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI RAMESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Pan : Abwpm2673E

Capital Gain at Rs. 13,21,51,725/- (Market value of Plot As per Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 16,17,50,000/- less cost of acquisition of Rs. 2

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

50C\nRs.1321000/-\nFull Value of consideration\nRs.1321000/-\nSale Expenses\nRs.25000/-\nNet Sale Consideration\nRs.1296000/-\nAcquisition Cost (2004-05) after indexation - Rs.166583 * 582/480 =\nRs.201982/-\nBalance\nRs.1094018/-\nExemption u/s 54 =\nRs.10,50,000/-\nNet LTCG =\nRs.44018/-\nTotal LTCG other than Securities(General)\nIncome from Capital Gain Rs.44018/-\n2.4 However, having gone through the sale deed of the land bearing Khasra\nNo.528/1,528/3/1/2/1