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

gain required to be computed under Section 48 of the Act by adopting the stamp duty value of Rs.91,21,800/- as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.02.2018 as to why the capital

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

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

gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset by an assessee during the previous year. Section 48 provides for the computation

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

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

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

capital gains were attracted in the hands of the assessee as per provisions of Section 48 & 50C of the Act. He, therefore

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

section 153C r/w s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The brief background facts of the case are that during the course of a search u/s.132(1) of the Act on Mokha Group of cases on 14.12.2011, an agreement for sale of land dated

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 50C provides for deeming the stamp valuation as the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s. 48

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:-

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

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 with respect to sale consideration (higher or AIR and ITR). 3. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14/08/2013 by determining the total income of Rs.8,74,550/- by making addition of Rs.2,56,280/- and Rs.50,000/- u/s 43CA and disallowed the expenses respectively. The learned Pr. CIT is of the opinion that

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

gain /loss incurred by the assessee. The AO is directed to re - compute the short term capital loss take into consideration the cost of acquisition, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital asset and sale price in accordance to the provision of Section 48

RITA MANCHHANI ,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT-1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‘s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

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

48 months within which the conveyance of the property was envisaged to be made under the agreement. The assessee‘s return was selected for scrutiny for verification of the source of funds for purchase. The same was explained by the assessee as financed through bank borrowings (at Rs. 2.75 cr.) and the balance Rs. 94 lacs through banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income for the relevant year. The claim, though confirmed for disallowance by the Tribunal, had been allowed by it for AY 2000-01, and admitted in appeal by the High Court