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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA REWA vs. ITO-REWA, DITRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 had been passed without considering the facts of the case. It was submitted that out of the payment of Rs.1,64,00,000/-, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through account payee cheques issued from Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank where he had been maintaining the account no.8081959076 and the balance

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA vs. ITO-REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 had been passed without considering the facts of the case. It was submitted that out of the payment of Rs.1,64,00,000/-, Sh. Dileep Kumar Rajwani had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through account payee cheques issued from Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank where he had been maintaining the account no.8081959076 and the balance

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

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

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

50,000 with respect to investment done in new property and Rs.50,00,000 deposited in capital gain account which was duly withdrawn for the purpose and payment on account of expenses done for the construction without even going through the reply and documents filed by the appellant. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi

RJKUMAR VALECHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS VALECHA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABAPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajkumar Valecha L/H Of Late V. Dcit Circle-2(1) Shri Ghanshyam Das Valecha Annexue Building Napier S-736/1-4 Mahavir Complex, Town-482001. Russal Chowk-482001. Pan:Abjpv5609E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Rahul Padha, Jc-2 Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

section 50(c) as the agreement for sale is dated 22/04/2007. Page 2 of 5 5. The legal heir was registered on the IT portal on 26/04/2019, the CIT (A) and AO cannot take shelter that death certificate was not submitted before AO. The copy of death certificate is submitted before CIT(A) which is ignored to uphold the legality

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

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

section 54F cost of complete house including garden open space and parking space other etc. are exempted. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not appreciating the documents produced before him as copy of agreement property tax payment receipt, receipt of municipal corporation, Nagar Nigam lease deed, electricity bill, certified copy of lease deed, copy

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (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 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

capital gain as added to income of Rs26,49,500/- besides addition of income from other sources of Rs2,00,500 (being difference of cash deposition and full sales consideration). Ld. CIT-A has erred in confirming the assessment order with addition. 7. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT -A erred in having

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

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is totally unjustified in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.14,16,175/- from the short term capital loss on the ground

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

50,370. The ld. Pr. CIT was, on a review of the assessment order, of the view that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to examine the applicability of sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, in which case, the purchase consideration is deemed at Rs. 1208.61 lacs, i.e., at the market value as on the date of purchase

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

50 (SC)). Clearly, therefore, the merits of the case of the opposing sides aside, the Revenue’s case can survive only where the Explanations to section 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted simultaneously by Finance Act, 2021, remove the allowance (or otherwise) of the impugned sums outside the realm of controversy, which has in fact attended it for long, with

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

50 (SC)). Clearly, therefore, the merits of the case of the opposing sides aside, the Revenue’s case can survive only where the Explanations to section 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted simultaneously by Finance Act, 2021, remove the allowance (or otherwise) of the impugned sums outside the realm of controversy, which has in fact attended it for long, with