ANURODH SAHU,JABALPUR vs. ITO (IT AND TP), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Anurodh Sahu, Vs. Ito (Ft & Tp), 3173, Tulsi Nagar Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Pan: Bktps9371L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (It & Tp), Bhopal At Jabalpur Dated 16.01.2024 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Assessment Order Issued By The Learned Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Directions Of Drp Is Unjustified & Base Less On The Basis Of Information & Documents Submitted. 2. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Never Countered Or Produced Before The Assessee The Source Of Information/ Documents On Basis Of Which The Said Addition Appealed Against Is Made During Whole Assessment Proceedings. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Never Questioned The Relevant Sources Of Income Produced & Submitted By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings & Brought Nothing On Record To Prove Or Justify The Assessee Having Some Other Source Or Hidden Source Of Income. 4. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Made The Additions On The Basis Of Incomplete Information Having No Evidence & Based On Surmises On The Directions Given By Drp.

gain was computed on the basis of summary transactions provided by the Koinex exchange. As per the same, assessee had made purchases of the value of Rs. 1,31,31,481/- and sales of Rs. 1,28,58,585/-. Thus, prima facie, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,72,896/-. Accordingly, the AO decided to allow

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot have a set bench mark or a process or a method which so as to guide a businessmen to conduct its affairs

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot have a set bench mark or a process or a method which so as to guide a businessmen to conduct its affairs

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot have a set bench mark or a process or a method which so as to guide a businessmen to conduct its affairs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot have a set bench mark or a process or a method which so as to guide a businessmen to conduct its affairs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot have a set bench mark or a process or a method which so as to guide a businessmen to conduct its affairs

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

loss of Rs.8,95,787/-. The assessment was completed under section\n143(3) on a total income of Rs.3,37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other

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

loss of Rs.8,95,787/-. The assessment was completed under section\n143(3) on a total income of Rs.3,37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other