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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

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

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR vs. SHRI REKHCHAND JAIN, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years: 2015-2016) Ito-1(3), Raipur V Shri Rekhchand Jain, S Prop.: M/S Oswal Radio, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Acipj2381 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Shri Bikram Jain, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

54B of the Act thereby completely ignoring the fact that the AO has disallowed the deduction claimed on the ground that the assessee has purchased all the 4 lands on 25.11.2014, 25.11.2014, 09.12.2014 and 30.03.2015 at village Dhanelli whereas the assessee has sold the land at Sejbahaar on 31.03.2015 thereby proving that 2 the land was purchased either before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and hence not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act? 3 DCIT-2(1) Vs. Radheshyam Agrawal 4. Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of cost of improvement amounting to Rs.18,77,602/- out of total amount claimed

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

54B of the Act, despite the fact that the same was never raised by him in his return of income? CO No.83/RPR/2015 A.Y.2007-08 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, as per the settled position of law it is not permissible

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