ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI vs. SMT.NIRMALA PATHAK, KATNI

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and C

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2014-15

Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [for short, the CIT(A)] dated 09.10.29019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15. ITA No. 02 & C.O. 2 JAB 2020-Smt. Nirmala Pathak 2 2. Shri I.B. Khandel, ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 98,34,260/- towards the Long Term Capital Gain

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

capital gains on sale of shares is not chargeable to income tax, therefore on facts also the order made under section 263 is illegal as no error has been committed by the AO that may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue the order under section 263 should be annulled. 3 That no notice under section 263 was issued

SANDHYA PANDIT,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasandhya Pandit V. Income Tax Officer Near Lilhare Clinic, Baihar Railway Station Rd, Itwari Road Balaghat, Balaghat H.O. Ganj, Chitragupt Nagar, Balaghat, Balaghat-481001. Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Alnpp9235G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2023 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As To “Acit”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

addition of Long Term Capital Gain to the income of the appellant, @s under any circumstances the income of his Mother

SHRI NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha V. Pr. C.I.T.-2 C/O Samapat Lal & Sons Jabalpur Raghunath Ganj Katni Tan/Pan:Afhpg3398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

capital gain worked out to Rs.39,29,800/-, and that the A.O. had gone wrong in determining the same at Nil. 4. As before the Pr. C.I.T., the assessee has placed reliance on ‘Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO', 49 SOT 160 (Jaipur-Trib.). It has been contended that the Pr. C.I.T. has erred in holding that the decision

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

addition of Rs.6, 13,000/- vide Para 5.2 of the order invoking Sec 68 and initiating Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The capital gain since already calculated in excess with Rs. 6,13,000/-,and adding the same again u/s 68, would be taking same income

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA vs. ITO-REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition

GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA REWA vs. ITO-REWA, DITRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

gains of\nbusiness but that did not mean that its income from other sources would not be\ntaxed. In that case, the company had chosen not to keep its surplus idle but had\ndecided to invest it fruitfully. The Hon'ble Court held that the fruits of such\ninvestment would clearly be of Revenue nature. In other words

KAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , SATNA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Kailash Chand Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 51, Pili Building Company Bag, Ward-1, Satna. Satna Pan : Ajlpa 3500B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

Capital Gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property reported in AIR, large cash deposit”. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs.49,67,801/- after making an addition

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

capital gain as added to income of Rs26,49,500/- besides addition of income from other sources of Rs2,00,500 (being

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

gains of\nbusiness but that did not mean that its income from other sources would not be\ntaxed. In that case, the company had chosen not to keep its surplus idle but had\ndecided to invest it fruitfully. The Hon'ble Court held that the fruits of such\ninvestment would clearly be of Revenue nature. In other words

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

capital gain. u/s 69. 1 A.Y. 2014-15 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 15,70,000/- u/s 69. (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short), the revision of the former (vide order dated 28/03/2017) is also contested by the assessee before us. The issues arising being common and inter-related, the appeals were heard together, are being adjudicated per a common order. The background facts 2.1 The background facts, as borne out of the record

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short), the revision of the former (vide order dated 28/03/2017) is also contested by the assessee before us. The issues arising being common and inter-related, the appeals were heard together, are being adjudicated per a common order. The background facts 2.1 The background facts, as borne out of the record

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

income from other sources, when the transaction in capital asset called for assessment of capital gains tax only and when all the details are available with the lower authorities to determine the capital gains, the addition

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F 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

addition of Rs. 39,29,800/- confirm treating that the Hon'ble ITAT has set-aside and cancelled the order U/s 263 of IT Act, 1961, does not mean that the Assessment order passed U/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of IT Act, 1961, is also invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. 3. That the Ld NFAC, Delhi

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR vs. SMT. SHEELA RANI JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter), dated 27/02/2015, for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee on 30/03/2009, i.e., during the relevant year, is a capital asset under the Act or not, on the sale of which therefore „capital gains‟ shall, or as the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

additions made untenable for the following reasons: a. the assessee-company had submitted all the necessary documents to the AO, including the balance-sheet as on 31/3/2015 of the creditors – who were in fact assessed with him, proving their creditworthiness; b. the credits representing loans by the family members for financing the business of the assessee-company, their genuineness could