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

section 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee declared the LTCG of Rs. 1,93,91,750/- under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and paid the entire taxes. According to ld. Representative, if at all any disallowance that may be made for the A.Y.2015-16 and not for A.Y.2014-15. Furthermore there cannot be any addition for A.Y.2015-16 also, since

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 263 of the Income tax Act. 1961. 2. In view of the above, an opportunity of being heard as required u/s.263(1) of the Income tax Act is provided to show 6 | P a g e Shri Naresh KuamrGolchha vs ITO cause as to why the capital gain

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

6 | P a g e Vishal Sethi vs. ITO (A.Y.2014-15) assessment that is to follow. The cost of construction, or its indexation, though related to the computation of capital gains, cannot be said to be specific issues arising in the verification of the sale consideration, i.e., the specific area or field qua which the enquiry could only be directed. This

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

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

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

capital gain. u/s 69. 1 A.Y. 2014-15 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 15,70,000/- u/s 69. (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed

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

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)

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee only enjoyed a 1.42% interest

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)

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee only enjoyed a 1.42% interest

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

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.

capital gain on the cost of building of remaining 8 properties as he has not done construction and appellant has sold land only which was also mentioned in the sale deeds itself. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in accepting the discount of 25% on encroached MaheswariMukund Das, Jabalpur. properties whereas discount should be more

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

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 was not justified in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the genuine claim

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.

gains on sale of shares is not chargeable to income tax, therefore on facts also the order made under section 263 is illegal as no error has been committed by the AO that may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue the order under section 263 should be annulled. 3 That no notice under section 263 was issued

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.

6. Low 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

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:

capital gains of Rs.4,75,071/- after claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act of Rs.1,30,29,096/- by investing in the purchase of agricultural land of Rs. 1,19,14,912/- and Rs.7,00,000/- claimed towards development expenses. The AO has called for various details and clarifications and on enquiry, the AO found that the land

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

6. The assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order of CIT(A) is bad in law.” 2. The facts of the case are that there was an information related to the assessee that she was involved in obtaining bogus short term capital loss by furnishing fabricated anti

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

PAWAN YADAV, CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.07.2024 by which the appeal against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Chhindwara dated 12.09.2016 have been dismissed as withdrawn. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the Ld. A.O. has in disallowing the erred cash deposits of Rs. 46,42,500.00 disregarding the actual facts, cash book