MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

45,92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

45,92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

45,92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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)

45,840/- under the head, ‘labour payment’, Rs.3,30,458/- under the head, ‘labour welfare expenses’ and Rs.40,52,840/- under the head, ‘repair and maintenance’. He asked the assessee to substantiate these payments, but in the absence of response, he held that the same were unverifiable. Accordingly, he made a disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- on this account

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

45,00,000/- from Ms. Shivani Agarwal by account payee cheque, depositors are identified and capable of lending said amount, transaction is genuine. Id. CIT (A) erred in not accepting the loans of Rs. 20,00,000/- and adding the same as unexplained credit u/s 68. 7 Since loans received Rs. 20,00,000/- are genuine and borrowed

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

45,000 Less: Page 3 of 7 Indexed Cost of Acquisition in 2006-07 ₹15,85,952 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2010-11 ₹1,43,958 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2011-12 23,53,899 Indexed Cost of Improvement in 2015-16 23,93,967 Total long-term gain 14,07,282 The tax payable under normal rates

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

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

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