SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

capital gains to the extent invested in the new residential house is not chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54F

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

1) were issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed his written submissions. During the course of assessment 2 proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has shown the house property income at Rs.70,019/-, income from long term capital gain at Rs.19,80,027/- and income from other sources at Rs.32,32,450/-. On verification

RAJESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain arising to assessee as well as towards eligibility of deduction under section 54F was placed before the A.O. The PCIT has regarded the Assessment Order as erroneous mainly on the ground that construction work has been completed to the extent of 70% only as reported by the DIT (I&CI) in this regard. The PCIT

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain. The construction of the residential house was completed on 18.06.2017 whereas the land parcels were sold in March 2016. It was submitted that the very issue was subjected to requisite enquiry by the A.O. vide notice dated 11.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. In the course of the assessment, the A.O. was eventually satisfied with the eligibility of the deduction under

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)’].

Section 54F as the actual sale consideration amounting to Rs.21,75,000/- (being 1/6th of Rs.1,30,50,000/-) stood reinvested entirely which 1 Mahesh Shrivastava vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) entitles the assesse for exemption u/s 54F from whole amount of Long Term Capital Gain

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

capital gain for construction of additional floor in the same house. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 290 ITR 90 (Mad.) has held that a mere extension of the existing building will not give benefit to the assessee under Section 54F of the Act. The case of the assessee

RAJINDER SINGH SADANA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCAL PURPOSE in above terms

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana D-102, Jainam Plannet, Mandi Rd. Raipur – 492009, Chhattisgarh . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan: बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 4(1), Raipur. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By :Shri Veekaas S. Sharma :Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 21/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/01/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax

54F and additionally with a fresh claim of set off of capital losses arisen from trading in future derivatives against the capital gain charged to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the additional evidence and the ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 6 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana ITA No.144/RPR/2019 AY: 2012-13 remand report, gave partial relief, however

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

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

1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said reassessment order has been

NEELAM MANDHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.303/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neelam Mandhani D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bgkpm2502A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain, if any arised on the sale of land at Indore. So far as the claim of the assessee that she had availed exemption under section 54F on the sale of above Land at Indore is baseless because for claiming the exemption one has to file his/her return of income, otherwise the same is not allowable. Therefore, the claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3),, RAIPUR vs. SMT. RACHNA DEVI SADHWANI L/H OF LATE SHRI KALYAN DAS SADHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

gain u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) challenging the action of Ld AO, wherein the Ld CIT(A) considering the facts and evidential material laid during the course of assessment proceedings, overturned the assessment order in its entirety. 4.3 Against this first

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAGDALPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 273/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ajay Kumar Agrawal, C/O. Ajay Kirana Stores, Rajmahalparisar, Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.)-494 001 Pan : Ajgpa3386A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain on sale of property for tax; and (ii). that due to the difference in the sale consideration and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for registration of the sale transactions the provisions of Section 50C of the Act would stand triggered, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148