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)

16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain

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

16 and if AO is having any dought he should have visited the spot which he failed to do even though it was within 2 KMS from his office . 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the deduction

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 with respect to sale consideration (higher or AIR and ITR). 3. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14/08/2013 by determining the total income of Rs.8,74,550/- by making addition of Rs.2,56,280/- and Rs.50,000/- u/s 43CA and disallowed the expenses respectively. The learned Pr. CIT is of the opinion that

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is totally unjustified in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.14,16,175/- from the short term capital loss on the ground

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

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

16,26,700/-. 2. Subsequently, the Appellant’s case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the Appellant filed a return of income under Section 148 on 29.05.2021, without any change to the income declared in the original return. 3. The Assessing Officer

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

RJKUMAR VALECHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS VALECHA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABAPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajkumar Valecha L/H Of Late V. Dcit Circle-2(1) Shri Ghanshyam Das Valecha Annexue Building Napier S-736/1-4 Mahavir Complex, Town-482001. Russal Chowk-482001. Pan:Abjpv5609E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Rahul Padha, Jc-2 Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

capital gain on sale of land was disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The reopening is illegal. 7. The service of notice u/s 148 on 01.04.2019 is barred by limitation for reopening of assessment. The notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings should be quashed in toto. 8. The appellant craves permission to raise any other ground

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

Capital Expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- if clubbed with 15% of total receipts of Rs 1,32,77,585.25 comes to Rs 1,33,14,795/-, henceforth excess of income over expenditure comes to Rs 37,209.75. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 7 This certificate is issued at the specific request of the Trust, solely

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

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern

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

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern