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.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of interest paid Rs.21,215/- on account of late deposit of TDS. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs.50,000/- made under section

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

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(3) of I.T. Act 1961 on 26/02/2014 by ITO, Ward - 1, Katni after due examination of audited financial statements and books of account. A.O. has made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/ - out of various expenses claimed in profit and loss account. 8. Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 07/01/2016. The reasons recorded indicate that

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(3) of I.T. Act 1961 on 26/02/2014 by ITO, Ward - 1, Katni after due examination of audited financial statements and books of account. A.O. has made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/ - out of various expenses claimed in profit and loss account. 8. Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 07/01/2016. The reasons recorded indicate that

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS provisions under section 194C. Therefore, he made 30% amounting to Rs. 48,13,449/- disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna Construction Company expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.20,38,532/- from Executive

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

3 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO proceedings cannot be questioned where the LR is impleaded or otherwise joins the proceedings, and is allowed opportunity of being heard before passing the order under reference; the defects in procedure – except where fundamental, affecting the jurisdiction, being saved by sec. 292B. Reference therein is also made to Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia

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 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

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

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

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

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)

3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted

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)

3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted

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

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

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

3. That the capital gain arose after the last advance tax instalment due on 15.03.2016, and tax on such income was ultimately paid along with self- assessment tax. While processing the return under section 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

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

3,033/- for non-payment of Tax without considering the TDS at Rs. 19,687/- is arbitrary and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired employee of State Bank of India. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned income from pension amounting to Rs.3,32,842/- and interest

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(3