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 that while the assessee has already started the construction of the property in earlier years but, however, the construction was A.Y. 2016-17 Page 4

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

4. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein, returned income declared by the assessee was assessed as such without any adjustments. 5. Thereafter, the PCIT in exercise of revisionary powers, issued show cause notice dated 23.02.2021 to show cause as to why the impugned assessment so framed under section 143(3) of the Act should

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;

4 of 8 Mohammad Akhtar Khan ITA No 87/RPR/2019 AY 2013-14 property prior to sale was held by the assessee jointly with one of the family member. Insofar as the claim of 54F is concerned, the Ld. AR contended that, construction of new floor itself brings into existing a new asset having comprised of separate bedroom, hall and kitchen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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