M/S. RAJENDRA NATHANI (HUF),RAIPUR (CG) vs. ITO- 1(2),, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Rajendra Nathani (Huf), Ito- 1(2), H-100, I-6, Rajiv Nagar, Raipur (Cg). Shankar Nagar, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

section 50C while computing the capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and building either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG vs. NITIN GUPTA, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 95/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Nitin Gupta 55, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ahlpg5270A ……""यथ" / Respondent

Capital Gain (LTCG) that was disclosed by the assessee on the sale of agricultural land at Iskcon, Raipur on 15.04.2014 by adopting sale consideration of Rs.66 lacs as against Fair Market value (FMV) of Rs.78,97,500/- (as was discernible from sale deed), though not in conformity with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act was summarily accepted

RAM BHUVAN YADAV, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Bhuvan Yadav Villa No.Cb-3, Romanceque, G.E. Road, Labhandih, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abbpy6681R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain. The assessee had sold the land admeasuring 0.405 hectare located at Mathpuraina, Raipur through registered conveyance deed dated 27.08.2012 against aggregate consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. The A.O made addition of Rs.18,75,000/- solely on account of difference between value adopted for stamp duty purpose and the sale consideration. In other words, the addition was made

MAHESH SHRIVASTAVA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 702/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Mahesh Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer-3(1), House No. 6, Phase-Ii, Office Of The Income Tax Office, Harsh Vihar Colony, Daldalshivni Central Revenue Building Civil Road, Mowa, Raipur-492007, C.G. Lines, Raipur-492001, C.G. Pan: Bqfps6242G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : 05.01.2026 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2008-09 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2025 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.74,46,583/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking Section 50C

SMT BUDHAREEN BAI,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Budhia Reen Bai, Ito, Near Shitala Mandir, Bhatapara (Cg). Hathanipara Ward, Vs. Bhatapara (Cg) – 493118. Pan : Bxxpb0771Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Sharma, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2019 O R D E R Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am :

50C : Rs.48,00,000/- Less indexed cost of acquisition : (83x939/100) : Rs. 7,803/- 5 LTCG : Rs.47,92,197/- In view of the discussion made above Rs. 47,92,197/- is added to the income of the assessee being income from Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1

DY.C.I.T. 1 vs. SMT SANGEETA CHAWLA, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

section 50C of the Act being 50% of total cost of acquisition of Rs.3,10,,69,500/-. Since the assessee has shown Rs.10,80,400/- as short term capital gain, the Assessing officer determined Rs.1,12,49,550/- as short term capital gain and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed

SHRIKANT SOMAWAR, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.589/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shrikant Somawar Prop. Raigarh Gas Service, Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Ajfps7436J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain under section 50C is not justified on the basis of the fact that the property 4 Shrikant Somawar Vs. ITO-1, Raigarh (C.G.) is limited to restricted sale/purchase transactions because the assessee belong to scheduled tribe, hence affecting the market value of the property considerable. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable due to the fact that

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

1), Bilaspur rightly triggered the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 50C(2) of the Act and substituted the FMV of the lands purchased by the assessee as against the actual purchase consideration? AND, (iii) that as to whether or not the A.O is right in law and facts of the case in concluding that the assessee had failed

LAKHICHAND SIDARA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

50C the value adopted or assessed (or assessable) by the Stamp Valuation Authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, thus, should be referred to a valuation officer by the AO, this contention of the assessee was not accepted by the Ld AO because the value adopted

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.6,98,15,050/- on the said sale transaction was worked out in his hands. The assessee had against the aforementioned amount of 7 Sanket Jhabak & Others Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur ITA No.478 & 479/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 233 to 237/RPR/2024 LTCG, claimed deductions aggregating to Rs.5,61,15,943/-, viz. (i) U/s.54B of the Act: Rs.4

MOHAMMED YUSUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Mohd. Yusuf Ward No.27, Dabari Para, Mova, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan : Acfpy4817N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of the aforesaid property under consideration under Section 50C of the Act at Rs.3,27,93,522/-, and vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 16.02.2015 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,22,61,520/- (including LTCG of Rs. 3,27,93,522/-). 5 Mohd. Yusuf Vs. ITO-3(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. MAHAVIR INFRACON PVT. LTD., RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer

SMT. SHAHNAJ SHEIKH,,KORBA(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- I, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 148/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Shahnaj Sheikh Mig-Ii, 47, Nehru Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Brpps3003Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

Section 50C of the Act would override the normal provisions for the purpose of quantification of the amount of long-term capital gain, but then, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the entitlement of the assessee for claiming deduction u/s.54 of the Act would continue to remain dependant on the amount of actual consideration received by the assessee