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

section 194(C)(6) the TDS on the same was not deducted. On verification the contention of the assessee was found correct.‟ The same unequivocally confirms that no inquiry on the aspect raised by the ld. Pr. CIT, i.e., the cumulative satisfaction of the conditions of ss. 194C(6) & 194C(7), as against s. 194C(6) alone, qua which only

SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

30,050/-. However, in the revised return filed, the claim of Rs. 1,52,500/- was claimed as income from business and profession and a further amount of Rs. 55,09,367/- was shown under income from other sources. TDS credit of Rs. 81,729/- relatable to total receipts of Rs. 56,61,867/- was claimed in the revised return

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 40A(3) of the Act. 2. Considering the fact that the auditor has treated Rs.7,30,000/- out of telephone and mobile expense, vehicle expense and office expense as personal expense hence the ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming further disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- out of these expenses. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

BIRLA CABLE LIMITED,REWA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 200A of the Act. The CPC has passed order against the assessee under s. 200A of the Act for the Quarters 3 and 4 with regard to TDS and demands for Rs. 60,840/- and Rs.22,890/-, including interest at Rs. 6,516/- and 448/-, raised for the said two Quarters respectively. Aggrieved with the order

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

30 06 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 10.02.2024 of learned Addl. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. Addl. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: - “1. The learned

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

TDS liability to-wards purchasers. From the counter-foil of Cheque Book only one payment of Rs. 30,360/- is found to have been made through cheque. Since the I.T.A. No.52/Jab/2023 4 assessee has failed to explain the reasons of making payment in parts and below Rs.20,000/-, I disallow and add such payments, except one payment amounting

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

NARENDRA AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO-WARD 1 (2),, JABALPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 43B. Since, the said challans go to the root of the matter and is the most crucial evidence involved in the case, it is humbly requested before the Hon'ble Bench to accept Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground

RUCHI MAHILA MANDAL,CHHATARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHHATARPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS 1 | P a g e ITA No.194/JAB/20198 (A.Y. 2010-11) Ruchi Mahila Mandal vs. ITO was deducted by the contractor/supplier under section 194C of the Act and as per 26AS data a system generated notice was issued to the assessee-appellant on 14-03-2015 and 12-08-2015 for filing the return. The assessee-appellant did not file

I M C OF ITI ,GOTEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPURAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Imc Of Iti,Gotegaon, Vs. Ito (Exemption) Annex Bldg, Mission Jabalpur, Chowk, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh- Madhya Pradesh- 482001. 482001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai2999F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act.

section 139(4) (e), which require filling of ITR mandatory w.e.f 1.4.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016-17 2. That the CIT(appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of refund Rs. 69290/-alleging not having filed the ITR-7 on 14.06.2013 ask acknowledgment No. 299140613004324 affixed on forwarding letter, as per practice, not affixing seal on the ITR page, without confirming

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

section 133A of the IT Act 1961 in the instant year, books were examined, stocks were valued with coordination of the assessee 4 Co No. 09/JAB/2018 Chetanaya Promoter & Developers and some discrepancies were noticed. Statement recorded during survey proceedings dated 18.10.2014 and bifurcation of the surrender amount is as follows:- S.No Question no Particulars Amount 1 8 Undisclosed cash Rs.895000

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

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

30 09 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, dated 22.02.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That

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

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

30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

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

30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made