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

7 last para). The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur, in the case of Prakash Karnawat based on which the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee was also rendered following the decisions of the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT in the case of Gyan Chand Batra Vs. ITO (Supra) and the decision of the ITAT. Bengaluru

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

section 48, and of it being an integral part of s.45, as argued by the ld. CIT-DR, is misdirected, even as the statement is per se valid. The AO, where he intends to verify the areas of income determination, even if related to capital gains, is to get the scope of enquiry enhanced by converting it into a complete

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

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

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

section 69A could be made in any case where any sum was found credited in the bank account for any previous year and the assessee either offers no explanation about the nature and source as regards the same, or the explanation offered is not found to be satisfactory. He held that such an addition could be made in the hands

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. Accordingly, the questioned Capital Receipts or Other Income are to be examined thoroughly and may be taxed as per the prevailing provisions of the Act. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and legal findings, as the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries as well as apply his mind and proper application

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

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

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)

7,16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain

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:-

7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Pr. CIT | under section 263 of the unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts

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

SANDHYA PANDIT,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasandhya Pandit V. Income Tax Officer Near Lilhare Clinic, Baihar Railway Station Rd, Itwari Road Balaghat, Balaghat H.O. Ganj, Chitragupt Nagar, Balaghat, Balaghat-481001. Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Alnpp9235G (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 23.12.2023 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As To “Acit”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

Capital Gain to the income of the appellant, @s under any circumstances the income of his Mother Late Smt. Meera Mishra shall not be added in the hands of the appellant and the order is to be declared as NULL and VOID. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) has erred

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

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