SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

54B of the Act were duly complied with, there was no reason for the AO to deny the deduction. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the PCIT without giving any opportunity has proceeded on an irrelevant consideration, such as, land sold was a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, whereas, the assessee has never claimed

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

capital gain of Rs.3,90,94,919/- arising out sale agricultural land under section 54B of the Act because the appellant

MANISH SHUKLA,RAIGARH(CG) vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Section 45(2) of the Act, the long term capital gain was computed at Rs. 16.65 lacs. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 54B

DY. C.I.T.1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI MADANLAL LODHA, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Assessing Officer?" 2. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction U/S. 54B Of The It Act, 1961 Of Rs. 3,39,49,274/- As The Assessee Has Failed To Establish That Agricultural Operations Were Carried On, On The Said Land?" 3. "The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both In Law & On Facts." 4. "Any Other Ground That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing." 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Assessee Had Sold The Land At Sejbahar, Raipur At Rs.3,94,20,000/- On Different Dates. The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Capital Gain U/S.54B Of The Act For Rs.3,39,49,27/- As Under :-

capital gain u/s.54B of the Act for Rs.3,39,49,27/- as under :- 2 Full value of consideration of sale property Rs.4,19,90,001/- Deduction u/s.48 Rs.62,24,618/- Balance Rs.3,57,65,383/- Exemption under section 54B

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR RATHI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 125/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajkumar Rathi, Kawardha Bada, Opp. Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492001 Pan: Aappr0032A ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri A.K. Laskar, Jcit

54B was inserted by the Finance Act, 1970 w.e.f. 1st April 1970. Consequent on the amendments in the Sec. 2(1 A) and 2(14) rendering capital gains on certain agriculture land liable to tax, an exemption as introduced analogous to that granted in 5 A.Y.2012-13 respect of residential houses u/s 54. Under this section

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

PANKAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1),, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Puja Enterprises, Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur (Cg) Pan : Abdpa3986H …....अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bilaspur (Cg) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain

capital gain on sale of land was shown as exempt income which is filed at page No.11 of the paper book. The deduction claimed u/s.54B of the Act before the Assessing Officer vide letter which is placed at page No.71 of the paper book filed along with purchase deed of new agricultural land. It is the contention

GANPAT SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5) , RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ganpat Sahu S/O. Late Shri Sattusahu, Dabripara, Near Krishna Public School, Village-Dunda, P.O. Sejbahar, Raipur (C.G.)-492015 Pan : Fzxps0022R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, therefore, the consideration received on the sale of the same was exigible to capital gain tax in his hands. The aforesaid factual position was further fortified by the A.O on the basis of a report dated 20.12.2016 that was obtained by him u/s.133(6) of the Act from the Patwari, wherein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR vs. SHRI RAJA VIKRAM, BASTAR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 347/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Dist. Bastar (C.G) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Raja Vikram P/O. M/S. Vikas Associate ( Engineers), Jeypore Road, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G) Pan : Acopr6013N ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

gain arising from the transfer of the agricultural land in question was not exigible to tax, the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the assessee that under such circumstances there was no occasion for him to have raised a claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act in his return of income. In fact, the CIT(A) was of the view that

SMT SANTOSHI WARE,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAIPUR (CG)

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Capital Gain in the hands of the appellant overlooking the fact that the property was jointly inherited by the appellant along with her brothers 2 and sisters and she was owner of only 1/6 share in the property. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not addressing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SANDEEP JHABAK, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.418/Rpr/2024 Co No.16/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Sandeep Jhabak M/S. Allied Traders, Jhabak Bada, Near Tatyapara, Kamasipara (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adnpj2221L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act ought to have been quashed as bad in law, highly illegal, suffering from legal infirmities, arbitrary and nullity in the eyes of law and hence, it is requested that the re-assessment order may please be quashed and set aside. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in not quashing & annulling