INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

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

80,754/- by applying the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was not justified by not considering the assessment order bad in law on account of reason that the case of the appellant was not select ed for limited scrutiny for non-deduction of TDS

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

TDS without quoting under which section its being disallowed. 9 Considering the fact that assessee paid Rs. 2,40,000/as consultancy fee and Rs. 4,00,000/- as salary to his daughter — Sumedha Agrawal who is well qualified in MBA and giving her valuable service to the assessee for his business. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount

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

80,45,000 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

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

80,623/- and business promotion expenses of Rs. 2,82,229/-. The entire expense were to the tune of Rs. 2,05,82,834/-. Therefore, the AO on ad-hoc basis disallowed sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and added back to the income of the appellant holding that these expenses are not verifiable. The ld. CIT(A) restricted

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