SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page 1 of 6 ITA No.141& 142/Ind/2023 Sanjay Dubey Page 2 of 6 2. That the Ld. Lower authority as erred in making addition of Rs.15,58,000/- by invoking the provisions u/s 50C

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page 1 of 6 ITA No.141& 142/Ind/2023 Sanjay Dubey Page 2 of 6 2. That the Ld. Lower authority as erred in making addition of Rs.15,58,000/- by invoking the provisions u/s 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

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the valuation of the property. The Ld. AO has failed to consider the provisions allowing

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 50C provides a yardstick regarding adoption of a minimum sale value in case of transfer of capital asset. This is primarily to curb the malpractices of showing the sale transaction at abysmal prices

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 50C provides a yardstick regarding adoption of a minimum sale value in case of transfer of capital asset. This is primarily to curb the malpractices of showing the sale transaction at abysmal prices

INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA SAMITI,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

section 50C are applicable. He has relied upon the impugned orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the sale of Community Hall in question was not a normal transactions of transfer of capital assets but this transfer was in the proceedings of liquidation

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Transfer 05/02/09) Rs.1321000/-\nSale Value U/s 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

SHRI OM PRAKASH SHARMA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(4), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, 81, S.R. Compound, 3(4), Lasudiya Mauri, Indore. बनाम/ Dewas Naka, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afeps1290P Assessee By Shri P.M. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Shri M. Khandelwal & Shri Prabhawalkar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2024

transfer of his share in the immovable property belonging to the partnership firm and subjecting it to the capital gain in spite of the admitted factual position that the property in question belonged to the partnership firm of M/s. Bhagirath and Brothers and further, invoking the provisions of section 50C and treating the stamp duty value (Guideline price

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting