ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI vs. SMT.NIRMALA PATHAK, KATNI

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and C

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2014-15

gain or capital loss. The ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that after calling for the source for making investment for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee. Infact, the Assessing Officer reproduced the explanation of the assessee at page-5 of his order, accepted the explanation, and there was no addition

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

capital gains u/s. 48) and, inasmuch as it deems the same by adopting the value declared or assessed by the State for the purpose of levy of stamp duty on the transfer of immovable property, it fairly provides for a mechanism for an assessee to contest the said adoption in his case. This is even as the stamp valuation itself

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

capital gains u/s. 48) and, inasmuch as it deems the same by adopting the value declared or assessed by the State for the purpose of levy of stamp duty on the transfer of immovable property, it fairly provides for a mechanism for an assessee to contest the said adoption in his case. This is even as the stamp valuation itself

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Capital Gain, firstly by taking cost of acquisition of Land only instead to include the cost of building thereto and Secondly by disallowing the exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR vs. SMT. SHEELA RANI JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

capital gain shall arise on the sale thereof, else it shall. As we are remitting the matter, it would only be proper to require the AO to examine the aspect of the 1994 Notification as being the latest issued by CG in the matter, i.e., up to March, 2009, whereat the transfer in the instant case takes place. The burden

SMT SEEMA DEVI BAKLIWAL ,CHHINDWARA vs. ITO,WARD-1, , CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt Seemadevibakliwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Near Subjimandi, Nagpur Road, Budhwari Bazar, Chindwara-480001, Chindwara-480001, Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Afkpb8628Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rahul Bardia.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

capital gains of Rs.4,75,071/- after claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act of Rs.1,30,29,096/- by investing

MAHESHWARI MUKUND DAS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaheshwarimukunddas, Vs. Ito, Ward -2 1288, D B Vallbh Das Jabalpur Palace, Hanumantal, 2Nd Floor, Anxe Bldg, Jabalpur-482002, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhya Pradesh. Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh.

capital gains of Rs.1,24,02,920/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO has granted partial relief to the assessee

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

exempt under section 10 of the income tax act, the capital gains on sale of shares is not chargeable to income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

capital gain, as also Rs.28,91,159, stated as, again, on sale of shares, tax-exempt u/s. 10(38), in the receipt/payment

SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

exemption up to the limit of constructed area or in part. 7. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add or omit any ground upto the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The issue, as would be apparent from the foregoing, is the exigibility to tax of the capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

exempt capital gain of Rs.1,24,465/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer considering the information from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, came

SHRI JASBIR SINGH MARWAH,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Jasbir Singh Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), Marwah, Aayakar Bhawan, 1040 Prem Nagar, Annexe Bldg, Madan Mahal, Nagrath Chowk, Jabalpur-482003 Jabalpur -482001. Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahipm6658H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed The Order U/Sec 143(3) R.W.S 263 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assewssee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

capital gains and assessee has invested in another residential property and claimed exemption u/sec 54 of the Act. The AO on perusal

SMT.TEJAL JUGAL KISHORE,SATNA vs. PRINCPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain. 4 Tejal Jugal Kishore  Further the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned in his office note that “all the required verification on this issue has been done to check the identity of M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd, genuineness, creditworthiness of the assessee and knowledge of the assessee about Share trading. The information has been called from the M/s Comfort Fincap

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

exempt income. 3 Rashmeet Singh Malhotara Disallowance of interest – Short term capital loss: 5. The issue pertains to computation of short term capital gain

SHRI JITENDRA RANA,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT -1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

capital gain (on the stated property) at Rs. 3,00,115, claiming exemption u/s. 54F, on 05/06/2018. Subsequent notices u/ss

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act, pertaining to Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

gain anything. Fact of the matter is that assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act and is eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Therefore for inadvertent mistake the assessee cannot be penalized. Since the assessee has been claiming exemption u/s.10(23C) in the earlier years therefore during the year under consideration there is high probability that assessee again claimed

MANNULAL JAGANNATH DAS TRUST HOSPITAL,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

capital expenditure or repayment of loan/s by the assessee, considering which there is in fact net deficiency. (b) Without prejudice, surplus itself is no criteria for denial of approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi), which is to be in terms of rule 11AA, for which reference was made during hearing to CIT v. Rajmala Education Society