ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PANKAJ AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided\nU/s. 24 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in\ndirecting allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the\nIT Act against gains arising from sale of capital

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.

section 50C of the Act and computed the Long term 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PAWAN AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pawan Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Acjpa5377R (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Afhpa9553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Nema Adv & Sh. Ashish Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. The Above Captioned Appeals By Revenue Are Taken Up Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity & These Appeals Are Hereby Disposed Off Through This Consolidated Order; Because, In These Appeals The Tax Effect Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Fixed By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (“Cbdt”, For Short) In Its Circular No. 09/2024 Dated 17.09.2024. Grounds Taken In These Appeals Of Revenue Are As Under: A.Y 2015-16 Sh. Pawan Agarwal Sh. Pankaj Agarwal

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided U/s. 24 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the IT Act against gains arising from sale of capital

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

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

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

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

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

1 | P a g e Bhag Chand Jain v. Dy. CIT 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that benefit of section 54C cannot given in parts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the relevant material or evidence on record regarding house property, and partly disallowed exemption u/s. 54F

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

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

section 144 of the Act dated 15/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The assessee-individual, who did not file his return of income for the relevant year u/s. 139, was on the basis of Annual Information Report (AIR) discovered to have sold an immovable property, valued at Rs. 67.71 lacs, during the relevant previous year. The assessee responded

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

capital gain scheme or not. That as per the provisions of section 54 of the act only says that the assessee should construct the house that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be completed within stipulated time is view was been taken by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma