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

section 54F of the Act by utilisation of the sale consideration in residential house property under construction. It was submitted

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)

property and copy of alteration is placed with photographs. In these circumstances, it was contended that no embargo has been laid down in Section 54F of the Act to artificially restrict the deduction only with reference to one unit as held in ITO vs. Sushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 321 (Mum) (SB) and followed thereafter in Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi

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

54F of the Act by utilisation of sale consideration to the extent of deposit of Rs.1.50 Crores in Capital Gain Account Scheme and Rs. 50 Lakhs towards investment made on specified bonds under section 54EC of the Act. In this background, the assessee submitted that in the instant case the investment was made in construction of new residential house property

SHRI KALYANDAS LALWANI,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1),, BILASPUR(CG)

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

property jointly owned by the assessee and other five co-owners was sold to M/s. Shivram Ventures Pvt. Ltd. on 10-04-2008 for total sale consideration of Rs.5,03,00,000/-, Rs. 3,84,20,000/- for land and Rs. 1,18,80,000/- for super structure on the land. The assessee has shown 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;

Section 54F exempts tax on long term capital gains arising from transfer of any long term capital asset (not being a residential house) invested in a residential house. This exemption cannot be availed if there is a house in existence on the date of transfer. In the facts of the present case, I find that the assessee was the joint

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 :

property as on 01.04.1981 in terms of provisions of Section 55 of the I.T. Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to get exemption u/s 54F in respect of investment of Rs.35.00 lakhs made by the assessee in the construction of residential house

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 :

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 of one of the reasons for selection of case for scrutiny, the AO found that during the year under consideration the assesse has sold house at Tikrapara, Raipur at Rs.3

I.T.O. WARD -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT SHEELA CHAKOLE, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

section 54F is very clear in respect of claim of exemption and the assessee having satisfied the conditions has claimed exemption but the fact remains that the Assessing officer has not doubted the deposit of capital gain nor the sale consideration but only disputed that the amount has been deposited beyond the due date u/s.139

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

house property and income from other sources in the form of interest etc., and the long term capital gain [for short “LTCG”] arisen to him on transfer of listed shares/security with a with a claim of exemption u/s 54F. The said return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the Ld AO reopened the case on the basis

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)’].

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

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

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

54F of the Act : Rs.34,81,993/-. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee after claiming the aforesaid deductions had disclosed the balance amount of LTCG at Rs.1,37,00,107/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was, thereafter, accepted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated