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

TDS, Jabalpur Prop. M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., P.O.Amlai Paper Mills, Distt.-Shahdol(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACO3279J Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT DR Assessee By S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Abhijeet Shrivastava, AkkalDudhwewala, FCA, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, FCA Date of hearing 14/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 20/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These

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

TDS, Jabalpur Prop. M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., P.O.Amlai Paper Mills, Distt.-Shahdol(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACO3279J Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT DR Assessee By S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Abhijeet Shrivastava, AkkalDudhwewala, FCA, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, FCA Date of hearing 14/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 20/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These

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.

section 69 of the act as AO made two contradictory statements in assessment order ie one being that sum of Rs. 26 lacs paid to each seller (total 78 lacs although denied by assessee) is recorded in books of accounts and TDS

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:

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 of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation of income as to be deduction from business income. Hence

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.

TDS was required to be deducted under I.T.A. No.104/Jab/2018 C.O.No.03/Jab/2018 12 Assessment Year:2014-15 section 194J on the payment of Rs. 29,500/- made to 3 different parties. Hence, the assessee gets the relief of Rs.29,500/-. (ii) As regard the payment of Rs. 50,000/- made to Shri V Ravindra Prasad Advocate, the assessee submitted that

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

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS within prescribed time limit. Further, Annexure II as stated to have been attached with the Audit Report is also not found placed on record. The should have enquired the aforesaid facts which he failed to do. 10.1 With regard to the provisions of Rs. 17,44,964/- shown in the balance sheet on account of excess amount payable

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

JILA SAHKARIKENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , REWA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering assessee's request for adjournment uploaded on 29/12/2022. The appeal order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

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

26-28). The profit on the disclosed turnover had been duly declared. Supporting documents, unspecified though, were also stated as furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) accordingly found the same as satisfactorily explained, so that no adjustment to the returned income was made by him on that account. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT observed, inter alia, that

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