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

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 and was encroached by other persons. Due to this

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

3 and 5 are against treating long term capital gain on transfer of land of Rs. 86,88,960/- as income from other sources. 9.1 The appellant had shown long term capital gain on transfer of land of Rs. 86,88,960/-. This was accepted in the original assessment. In the re- assessment order, the AO has observed that

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

Section 50C(3), the sale value for computing the capital gain is to be adopted as per the value assessed

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(47) of the Act came to conclusion that the alleged transaction is a transfer and the assessee is liable to pay tax on the capital gain and accordingly worked out Short Term Capital Gain at Rs.6,63,525/- and added it the income of assessee. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also made for making incorrect claim

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

section 50C. The AO has accepted the capital gain declared by assessee and thus committed an error while completing assessment. 4. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2019 by which the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed submission which is re-produced

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

capital gain and therefore 50C would have no application. (2) CIT vs. Indralok Infra-Agro (P) Ltd.-(2013) 59 SOT 10MUM Provisions of 50C were not applicable to cases where income from sale was computed under the heads Income from Profit & Gains from Business & Profession.” 11.3 In view of the aforesaid discussion and the above judicial decisions and circumstance

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

3. On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) failed to realise that it is only a case of reworking or recalculation of long term capital gain on the basis of intimation already on record of the A.O. which does not amount to breach of of section 50C

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

Section 50C which is not applicable to the appellant’s case in the light of ITAT decision ITO, Ajmer V Raj Kumar Parashar ITA No.11/JP/2016 decided on 28.9.2017 by ITAT Jaipur.” 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income

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

section 50C(2)/(3). Page 8 of 11 Biharilal ITA No. 278/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19 (iii) Deduction of cost – in all five (5) transactions: Ld. AR submitted that the AO has taxed the entire sale-consideration of properties as ‘capital gain

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

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

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. Sub- section

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

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

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

3 Smt. Smita Pandey tax but as there was no column in the income tax return she bonafidely declared the transaction under the head capital and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Now the question before us is that whether the agricultural land measuring 5.71 hectare located at Shivangaon, Amarawati is an agricultural land and is not falling under

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

50C for computation of capital gain, but in the present case the stamps authority valuation is relevant not only for computation of capital gain u/s 48 but also for working out exemption u/s 54F.Since we are concerned with the revision-order in entirety which has two issues based on the stamps authority valuation, first one is the computation of capital

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. 2,95,98,275/-) was made to the income declared by the assessee. Ld. A.O also did not give credit to the tax paid by the assessee

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50C of the Act in respect of sale of two immovable properties and computed long-term capital gain by adopting the stamp duty valuation, resulting in an addition of ₹77,98,016/-. The Assessing Officer further made an addition of ₹2,00,000/- on account of alleged rental income from the said properties. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section

SHRI KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1 , BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 of 4 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to adopt value of property as per Stamp Duty Valuation as given under the provisions of Section 50C of the Act while computing the capital gain