DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

26,62,225/- raised u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for non payment of tax. 3. Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in admitting fresh evidence in appellate proceeding in violation of rule 46A of 1.T. Rule 1962. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

26,62,225/- raised u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act for non payment of tax. 3. Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in admitting fresh evidence in appellate proceeding in violation of rule 46A of 1.T. Rule 1962. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

26,03,10,369/ - being disallowance u/s 43B of the I. T. Act, 1961 on account of unpaid service-tax, surcharge and Income Tax deducted at source without appreciating the facts on the basis of which the addition was made by admitting additional evidence without affording adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer for verification. (iv) Whether on the facts

RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

26 lacs paid to each seller (total 78 lacs although denied by assessee) is recorded in books of accounts and TDS is deducted thereupon and second being that being difference between circle rate and actual purchase rate is of 6 lacs. Accordingly as per AO as the payment of 78 lacs was duly recorded in books of accounts with TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

10 Assessment Year:2014-15 Firm was not paying any payment to partner for the food grains cultivated and used by the assessee firm in its mess. The agriculture expenses were also debited in the mess expenses. Since the assessee Firm had used in its mess the food-grains produced in the agriculture land, the disallowance has been deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

section 68 is not sustainable. We therefore delete the same and allow ground No.3 of assessee's appeal. 16 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar (vii) In the case of Megha S. Shah v DCIT [2013] 38 CCH 76 the hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad 'C' Bench has held as under :- "11. We have heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

26,624/- under above heads. Without prejudice to above the CIT(A) appeal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.86,45,615/- under above heads. I.T.A. No.91/Jab/2019 C.O.No.01/Jab/2020 3 Assessment Year:2011-12 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.84

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

TDS\nhad been deducted on payment. In case of labour charges there are very\nfew instances where receiver signature were not found due-to the reason\nthat the amount was collected by the mukaddam i.e. head of the group of\nlabourer same 'were explained to the AO but he had not accepted and\nmade the adhoc disallowance against the order