SMT SEEMA DEVI BAKLIWAL ,CHHINDWARA vs. ITO,WARD-1, , CHHINDWARA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt Seemadevibakliwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Near Subjimandi, Nagpur Road, Budhwari Bazar, Chindwara-480001, Chindwara-480001, Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Afkpb8628Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rahul Bardia.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

capital gains of Rs.4,75,071/- after claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act of Rs.1,30,29,096/- by investing in the purchase of agricultural land of Rs. 1,19

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. JHARNA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

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

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATNA vs. SMT. SEEMA BHATTACHARYA, SATNA

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

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

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

19,53,664 shown by the appellant without appreciating that it is settled law that fair market value of the area should be taken as cost of acquisition as various factors like location, area, size, infrastructure facilities around the area, potential future development have to be taken into consideration and the value was taken by the AO without giving

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

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

19,91,638/- also results in nil income chargeable to tax. 4. Non-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

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

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

19 08 2025 Date of pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.09.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. AO on this point. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is in defiance of law, as the mandatory compliance of issuing and serving the notice

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. AO on this point. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is in defiance of law, as the mandatory compliance of issuing and serving the notice

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. AO on this point. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is in defiance of law, as the mandatory compliance of issuing and serving the notice

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. AO on this point. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is in defiance of law, as the mandatory compliance of issuing and serving the notice

RITA MANCHHANI ,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT-1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‘s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

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

19,33,350/- is hereby accepted. The assessee also confirms the same and it was mentioned in the reply which was reproduced in para 3 above.‘ The acceptance of the assessee‘s case in SM is, as apparent, based on the order by the first appellate authority in the case of seller-SS (PB pgs. 99 – 127), the relevant part

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

19. We find that on account of notification relating to enhanced wages which was challenged before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the liability was upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court against which special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was admitted but stay was not granted. The assessee