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

50C can be applied so as to adopt the value assessed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. [Para 11] There are two deeming fictions created in section 5O and section 5OC. The first deeming fiction modifies the term 'cost of acquisition

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

transfer expenses for sale of Rs. 8,78,515/- in his return of income. Perusal of the case record reveals that during the period relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has sold two properties. In the return of income the assessee disclosed sale consideration amount of Rs. 65,30,000/- and Long Term Capital Gain worked

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

price of new property Rs.99,48,000 + subsequent\nexpenses of additional work Rs.26,54,377) but the AO allowed exemption\nonly of purchase cost of Rs.99,48,000/- and disallowed exemption qua the\ncost of additional work.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the\nCIT(A) granted part relief by passing following order:\n“In considered

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

transferred to his account through normal banking channel. Thus the view taken by the CIT(A) on appreciation of the facts is a possible view.” 7.4 The appellant had received commission / brokerage from three parties and also submitted the copy of the said Page 5 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 transaction during

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

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

SHRI NARENDRA TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

transfer by an assessee”. Thus the provision of Section 50C is primarily applicable on the seller of the property. There is no evidence on record which could show that the Ld. A.O carried out any investigation against the seller or took his/her statement or whether any addition has been made in the hands of the seller for the alleged amount

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

SHRI NARESH MODI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BASANTILAL MODI),INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

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

transfer was completed during the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08. Hence the capital gain cannot be taxed after applying the provision of section 50C of the Act in the year under consideration. On the contrary Ld. DR opposed the submissions and submitted that judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, in the case of Bagri

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

transferred to other accounts. Considering the above facts and finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore the addition made by the AO at Rs. 89,99,500/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted. 3.3.8 Considering the above facts addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,35,15,500/- (and net addition

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

transferred to other accounts. Considering the above facts and finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore the addition made by the AO at Rs. 89,99,500/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted. 3.3.8 Considering the above facts addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,35,15,500/- (and net addition

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

transferred to other accounts. Considering the above facts and finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore the addition made by the AO at Rs. 89,99,500/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted. 3.3.8 Considering the above facts addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,35,15,500/- (and net addition

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

transferred to other accounts. Considering the above facts and finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore the addition made by the AO at Rs. 89,99,500/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted. 3.3.8 Considering the above facts addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,35,15,500/- (and net addition

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

transferred to other accounts. Considering the above facts and finding of the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore the addition made by the AO at Rs. 89,99,500/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted. 3.3.8 Considering the above facts addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,35,15,500/- (and net addition