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)

natural to assume that he had made an equal amount of investment as any other partner or earned an equal amount of capital gains as any other associate, upon the sale of the lands. He, therefore, prayed that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed and may be confirmed. A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh

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)

natural to assume that he had made an equal amount of investment as any other partner or earned an equal amount of capital gains as any other associate, upon the sale of the lands. He, therefore, prayed that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed and may be confirmed. A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh

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

capital gain at Rs. 39,29,800/- as computed above. The income assessed by the Assessing officer is enhanced to that extent. Para 8 of the order of ITAT at page -9 8. In view of the above, the assessing officer is directed to modify the income determined for the assessment year in accordance with the direction contained in paragraph

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Natural Justice. 3. The addition of Rs.21,72,628/- and Rs.3,60,291/-tantamount to double taxation of single transaction causing hardship to the genuine taxpayer. The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts and circumstance of the case in confirming addition and arbitrarily confirmed the addition which is bad in law and should be deleted. 1 Renu Anandani

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

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

capital gains were attracted in the hands of the assessee as per provisions of Section 48 & 50C of the Act. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs.69,00,845/- to the income 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Rajendra Sahu of the assessee on this account. The Ld. AO also observed that there were credit entries in the Bank Account No.225104000017736

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

natural justice", by not giving proper opportunity to the assessee; who was bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause. 2. That, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.25.109/-on account of low house-hold expenses, being arbitrary and unjustified

PAWAN YADAV, CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Capital Gain merely on basis of third party statement and without giving opportunity for cross examination to the appellant which is against the principles of natural law and justice

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: -

capital gain actually taxable in the hands of Late mother was added to the income of the assessee is not just and completely unwarranted. 10. in facts and circumstances of the case, the Order u/s 250 Passed by CIT(A) appears to be highly casual and out of the 22 Page order only one page i.e. Para

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 and further addition of Rs.24,00,771/- on account of undisclosed investment in house property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the NFAC, challenging the various additions made. The NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal on I.T.A. No.47/Jab/2023 2 the ground that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee on the dates, when the assessee

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

natural justice. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as 1 A.Y. 2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, being

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares, amounting to Rs. 25,58,557/-. The Appellant had purchased and sold shares of Appu Marketing and Manufacturing Limited, with supporting documents such as purchase bills, sale bills, demat account statements, and contract notes. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice. I.T.A. No.107/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 3 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC)erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant

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 difference of cash deposition and full sales consideration). Ld. CIT-A has erred in confirming the assessment order with addition. 7. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT -A erred in having

PARVINDAR SINGH,JABALPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleparvindar Singh, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1), 526, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur-48200, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Asaps9672A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

capital gains of Rs.29,23,904/- and assessed the total income of Rs.75,68,560/-and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2016. Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice and law contents order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. Similar opinion has been held by ITAT Ahmedabad werein it has been held as under:-. Case Name: City Manager Association Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Appeal Number: Date of Judgement/Order: 03/06/2022 Related Assessment Year: 2016-17 Courts: All ITAT ITAT Ahmedabad Download Judgment/Order