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

section 54F of the Act, in the circumstances where the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 06/01/2012 in the case of Gouli Mahadevappa, (Supra) was available at the time of passing assessment order, the assessing officer was not 3 | P a g e Shri Naresh KuamrGolchha vs ITO Correct in applying the decision of the lower judicial authority

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.

10 of the income tax act, the 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

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

gain anything. Fact of the matter is that assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act and is eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Therefore for inadvertent mistake the assessee cannot be penalized. Since the assessee has been claiming exemption u/s.10(23C) in the earlier years therefore during the year under consideration there is high probability that assessee again claimed

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

3. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 30.03.2022, assessing the income at Rs. 42,56,500/-. This included an addition of Rs. 26,29,800/- under Section 68 of the Act, treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit. 4. The AO also

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:-

10. The revision order dated 29.03.2024 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled.” 2. The facts of the case are that during examination of the assessment records of the aforesaid case, the Ld. PCIT noticed that the assessee had declared capital gain in the assessment year 2016-17 against the sale of two properties

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

capital gain. Similar is the position for purchase of assets. The immovable properties / assets those are if any purchased during the year are recorded in the books of account of assessee and reflected in audit report. Source of investment are also incorporated in the books of account. No any other assets / immovable properties were purchased by the assessee during

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: -

3)/147 immediately on 13/12/2019 which is an unreasonable length of time. it clearly case appears that Ld. AO was in hurry to complete his cases for no good reason and passed order without looking into the facts of the case already produced before Ld. AO which is bad and completely unacceptable in the eyes

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 54F of the IT Act as appellant if invested whole amount of capital gain in construction of new property. 7. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee

SMT.TEJAL JUGAL KISHORE,SATNA vs. PRINCPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

section 263 of I.T. Act 1961 for the assessment year under consideration. 4. The order passed by A.O. u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 being after proper examination and verification ought to have been held that it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2 Tejal Jugal Kishore 3. Heard the arguments of both

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

capital gains, income from other sources and also receives salary from foreign country Maynmar. The assessee has filed the return of income ITR 2 for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 6-11-2021 disclosing a total income of Rs,57,36,000/-.Whereas, the assessee has included the foreign salary income of Rs.13,99,110/- in the total income disclosed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It has also not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to furnish Form 10DB as required by the Assessing Officer to establish the payment of Security Transaction Tax which would establish the genuinity of the share transaction. 2. Although the tax effect involved in this case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh Poddar) Assessment Years

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh Poddar) Assessment Years

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.

section 148, he declared a total income of Rs. 81,510/-. The assessee submitted that he had purchased Bitcoins during the year from his SBI NRO account as under:- 2 Anurodh Sahu A.Y. 2018-19 Dated Amount (in Rs.) 20.10.2017 100002.38 23.10.2017 400005.90 23.10.2017 300005.90 03.11.2017 100002.36 27.11.2017 100002.36 Total 1000018.90 It was submitted that investment during the said financial

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

10 CTR 0375 (SC), in which it is decided that interest expenditure on borrowings is not allowed if the same is not related to the business of the assessee. The amount of Rs. 11,59,23,319/- on account of interest on borrowed fund is not eligible for disallowance u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. As the borrowed fund

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

10 CTR 0375 (SC), in which it is decided that interest expenditure on borrowings is not allowed if the same is not related to the business of the assessee. The amount of Rs. 11,59,23,319/- on account of interest on borrowed fund is not eligible for disallowance u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. As the borrowed fund

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.

3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have gone through the decisions referred to and relied upon by the assessee. The issue before us is as to whether the assessee has rightly claimed the interest paid

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.

3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have gone through the decisions referred to and relied upon by the assessee. The issue before us is as to whether the assessee has rightly claimed the interest paid