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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law being ex-parte, thus violating the "principle of natural justice", by not giving proper opportunity to the assessee; who was bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause. 2

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:

2) of the Act was issued. The reasons for selection of the case under CASS being (i)Large deduction claimed u/s 54, 54B, 54EG from the capital gains(ii) increase in capital in a year. Further the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire. In compliance to notice SmtSeema Devi Bakliwal

SHRI. NARSINGH RANGA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Narsingh Ranga Dcit, Circle-2(1) V. Sharda Chowk, Nagpur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Napier Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Town, Jabalpur, Madhya 482001. Pradesh-482001. Pan:Acmpr1917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

2,64,20,000/- within the period of 3 years from the date of sale of property. For the year under consideration AO has only to verify that the amount o investment which is to be deposited under section 54 as been invested with bank under long term capital gain

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

54 as appellant have filed all the details during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings and without prejudice to above presuming but not accepting if it was plot than also appellant is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the IT Act as appellant if invested whole amount of capital gain in construction of new property

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

54,427.80 was fully covered within the permissible 15% accumulation, leaving no taxable surplus of income over expenditure. 3. In lieu of para 1 & 2 above sum of Rs 17,41,999/- towards capital expenditure was not reported erroneously with non-capital (revenue) expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- at Sl. No 1. If this capital expenditure

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC)erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant and the appellant was not benefitted from filing the appeal