SHAKUNTALA SINGHVI,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

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

gains at Rs. 126.75 lacs, of which Rs. 100 lacs was invested in a long-term asset (being bonds issued by Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.) investment in which qualifies for exemption u/s. 54EC, in two tranches of Rs. 50 lacs each, on 31/03/2013 and 30/04/2013 (PB pgs. 10-11), and on that basis claimed, was allowed, exemption u/s. 54EC

SHRI NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha V. Pr. C.I.T.-2 C/O Samapat Lal & Sons Jabalpur Raghunath Ganj Katni Tan/Pan:Afhpg3398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

capital gain worked out to Rs.39,29,800/-, and that the A.O. had gone wrong in determining the same at Nil. 4. As before the Pr. C.I.T., the assessee has placed reliance on ‘Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO', 49 SOT 160 (Jaipur-Trib.). It has been contended that the Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the decision

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

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

section 54F of the Act, in the circumstances where the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 06/01/2012 in the case of Gouli Mahadevappa, (Supra) was available at the time of passing assessment order, the assessing officer was not 3 | P a g e Shri Naresh KuamrGolchha vs ITO Correct in applying the decision of the lower judicial authority

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.

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

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter), dated 27/02/2015, for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee on 30/03/2009, i.e., during the relevant year, is a capital asset under the Act or not, on the sale of which therefore „capital gains‟ shall

AMAR SINGH CHAUDHARY,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain arising to him. The Builder’s reply (dated 23.12.2013), as furnished in its assessment proceedings, is extracted in the relevant part in the ON. The same, also read out during hearing, reads as under: ‘14) Reply to query No. 66 The assessee firm entered into an agreement for development of property and sale thereof with Amar Singh Choudhary

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

Section 10(38) of the Act, pertaining to Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares, amounting to Rs. 25,58,557/-. The Appellant

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

gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if— (a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect of such business; (b) the donations made to the institution or fund are not used

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for assessment year (AY) 2015- 16 vide order dated 26.12.2017. 1 | P a g e Dy. CIT vs. Tarun Devcon (P.) Ltd. 2.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company in the business of real estate development, having its’ registered

SANDHYA PANDIT,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasandhya Pandit V. Income Tax Officer Near Lilhare Clinic, Baihar Railway Station Rd, Itwari Road Balaghat, Balaghat H.O. Ganj, Chitragupt Nagar, Balaghat, Balaghat-481001. Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Alnpp9235G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2023 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As To “Acit”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

section 250 without seeking any clarification or valuation report regarding the value of the property acquired before the financial year 1981-82. 8. In facts and circumstances of the case the order shall be declared as null and void as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) has failed to issue Notice of demand u/s 156 to the appellant

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

10. The revision order dated 29.03.2024 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled.” 2. The facts of the case are that during examination of the assessment records of the aforesaid case, the Ld. PCIT noticed that the assessee had declared capital gain in the assessment year 2016-17 against the sale of two properties

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. JHARNA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

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

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. SEEMA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

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

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

capital adequacy. The assessee purchased computer hardware for Rs.1779.09 lacs during the relevant year, claiming depreciation thereon in the impugned sum, at 50% of the eligible rate of 60%, having been put to use for a period of less than 180 days during the year. In view of the Assessing Officer (AO), section 43(1) read with Explanation 10 thereto

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain. Similar is the position for purchase of assets. The immovable properties / assets those are if any purchased during the year are recorded in the books of account of assessee and reflected in audit report. Source of investment are also incorporated in the books of account. No any other assets / immovable properties were purchased by the assessee during

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 54F of the IT Act as appellant if invested whole amount of capital gain in construction of new property. 7. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee

SMT. RASHMI PAHARIYA,JABALPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter) dated 14/07/2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) vide his order u/s. 263, dated 27/02/2019. 2. The only issue arising per the instant appeal is the maintainability of the impugned order, whereby the impugned assessment has been held as erroneous