BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

143(2), on the basis of which jurisdiction stood assumed, was issued in the name of the amalgamating company, no longer in existence, so that there was no valid of assumption of jurisdiction. Reference in this context, also made during hearing, be made to para 33 (pg. 637) of the Judgment, which reads as under: “33. In the present case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

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

143(2) did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee but due to non taking of objection before the ld AO, the assessment order is valid. 3. Considering the fact that the expense of Rs. 3,00,00,370/- recorded in dairy found during the survey, is duly recorded in books of accounts of the assessee hence

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.

section 143(2) was issued before the completion of the assessment the Hon'ble CIT(A) should have held that the assessment order of ld AO is bad in law. 4. Considering the fact that the assessee has produced on 15.10.2018 books of account and supporting bills, royalty payment challan etc, in respect of expenses of Rs.89,72,239/- debited

SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

143(2)/142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer made various addition totaling to Rs.16,64,162/- which majorly included disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid at Rs.11,15,549/- and assessed total income of the assessee at Sanjay Kale

SUPREME TRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA BHAWAN vs. DCIT, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Supreme Tractors Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Katni, Madhya Pradesh 483501. Katni, Madhya Pradesh- 483501. Pan:Aajcs4013M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sahil Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

143(1), CPC levied interest under section 234C for the entire year, treating the Assessee as in default of advance tax on MAT income. 4. That the limited controversy before this Hon'ble Tribunal is whether interest under section 234C can be levied in a MAT case where the triggering income (capital gains) arose after the last advance tax instalment

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

143(1) against the law and henceforth disallowance of Rs. 1,82,009/- being deduction from rental income under section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The procedure for handling ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases shall be as under: a. In ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case

SWETA GOENKA,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMR TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23/12/2019 is erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the said order is SET ASIDE, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order. The A.O. is further directed to pass a suitable order by making proper investigation

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 143(3) on a total income of Rs.3,37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an interest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as income from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 143(3) on a total income of Rs.3,37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an interest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as income from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 143(3), an addition of Rs.2,25,00,519/- was made with respect to unexplained unsecured loan. Before the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that it was the amount of SD (Security Deposit) of sub/petty contractors. The details of the said petty contractors alongwith the names and PAN numbers and the amounts deposited were submitted to the learned

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL,BETUL GANJ, BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BETUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

TDS AS PER SECTION 194(C) IF APPLICABLE EFORE WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFULL OPPORTUNITY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143/147 IS UNJUSTIFIED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER OPPORTUNITY /INQUIRY THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE U/S 143/147 IS IMPROPER, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWANTED.THE SAID ADDITION MAY KINDLY BEDELETED GROUNDS OF APPEAL U/S 143

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL BETULGANJ ,BETUL,BETUAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL WARD, BATUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

TDS AS PER SECTION 194(C) IF APPLICABLE EFORE WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFULL OPPORTUNITY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143/147 IS UNJUSTIFIED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER OPPORTUNITY /INQUIRY THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE U/S 143/147 IS IMPROPER, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWANTED.THE SAID ADDITION MAY KINDLY BEDELETED GROUNDS OF APPEAL U/S 143

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

143(3) of the act 11.09.2024. 2. That the appellant has not been provided proper opportunity of being heard by the first appellant authority before passing the order dated 11.09.2024. Hence the order passed by the first appellant authority is in violation’ to the principles of natural justice 3. That, there was sufficient reasons due to which the assessee could

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.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.5,52,85,400/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment u/s 143

RAMESH PRASAD YADAV,KHURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BINA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleramesh Prasad Yadav, Vs Cpc, Bangalore 01, Sharma Ward, Khurai, Ito, Bina. Madhya Pradesh-470117. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aafpy2747R Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

TDS was came to his knowledge on demand raised by the CPC, Bangalore. Firstly, we note that in the case, neither in the order of the AO nor in the order of ld CIT(A) date of passing order u/s 143(1) has been provided nor such order has been placed on record by the Revenue. It was the onus

LATE SHRI TIRATH RAJ SINGH,THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH, VIDEH NIKUNJ, NEAR JAWAHAR PARK, SIDHI(M.P),SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, , REWA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Tirath Raj Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Through Legal Heir Shri Rewa (Mp) Gyanendra Singh, Videh Nikunj, Jawahar Park, Sidhi (Mp) Pan : Ajkps7948G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri H.S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) was set aside by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) vide order dated 18.03.2013 on account of alleged omission on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of payments made in violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In the consequential