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).

2 market value of the property was Rs.53,26,300/-. Since there was understatement of capital gain, the case of the assessee was reopened and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 determined the total income at Rs.41,17,930/- wherein he made addition of Rs.38,26,300/- on account of long term capital gain

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

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 to substantiate his entitlement for claiming deduction

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

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)’].

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - 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

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

2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee had sold his property for Rs.42,00,000/- whereas market value of the said property was Rs.60,75,000/- and while calculating the capital gain on the sale of the property, the assessee had taken sale consideration at Rs.42,00,000/- . As per Section 50C

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

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) (c) are separately initiated for concealment of income. 3.2 Appellant

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) ..

capital gain of Rs. 21312/-. The assessment year involved here is 2009-10 and the case was reopened well before 28.11.2012. The period is covered less than four years, hence the proviso u/s 147 is not attracted. The relevant clause of explanation 2 under section 147 is worth to be reproduced as below: Explanation 2- For the purposes of this

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

section 50C of the I.T Act? 2. Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 22.08.2015, declaring an income of Rs.82,84,786/-. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2017 determining

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

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

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

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, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset

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