ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that penalty of Rs. 59,00,000/- cannot be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) as the addition has been made in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by applying the provisions of section 50C

THE ITO 2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MANORAMA DEVI AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 levied by the A.O. on the addition made u/s 50C of the Act. Hence under the same facts the CIT(A) was justified in deleting such penalty proceedings. 3. The assessee requests before your

MOHINI SRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Mohini Shrivastava, Ito 1(1), Hig-2/3,Geetanjali Complex, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acwps6390R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 O R D E R

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Rs.7,08,800/- made u/s 50C of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR has further contended that the addition made by the A.O is under deeming provisions of Section 50C and further based on estimation of fair market value by the 2

THE ITO, -3(2), INDORE vs. SHRI VIKRAMADITYA RANA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(2) Shri Vikramaditya Rana, Indore 5-E, Lakshya Regency, 15/2, Old बनाम/ Palasia, Indore Vs. (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Abvpj8461L Appellant By Shri V.J. Voricha, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Tribhuvan Sachdeva Adv. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

penalty of Rs.77,00,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by taking the plea of deeming provisions of section 50C whereas the fair market value adopted by DVO was at Rs.4,90,59,500/- for calculating the taxable Capital Gain & cost of improvement & expenses on stamp duty were not sustained and remained unexplained.” 2

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e. Valuation Rules. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B which is unjustified. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271

RAJEEV KAPOOR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajeev Kapoor, Acit-2(1), बनाम/ C/O Arera Auto Centre, Bhopal Vs. E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Adupk1034D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on reasons and grounds specified therein. Page 2 of 9 Rajeev Kapoor ITA No. 828/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are\ninitiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee\nis being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the\nassessment order.\nAddition - Rs.8,61,000/-.\n3. Computation of LTCG:\nDescription\nAmount\nComputation\nFull\nvalue of Consideration\n(sale\nRs.410000/-\nconsideration received in lieu of sale

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

50C and Rs.3,35,000/- as shown by the assesse without considering the explanation offered during appellate proceedings. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A() erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.130,493/- claimed u/s 48 of the Act being index cost of expenditure incurred for acquiring capital asset stating that