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)

22,16,080/- was made, which included an addition of Rs. 21,72,628/- on account of bogus short term capital loss on sale of shares. Subsequently, this assessment order was set aside by the ld. PCIT-1, Jabalpur under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee had transferred certain shares to her demat account

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: -

section 250 without seeking any clarification or valuation report regarding the value of the property acquired before the financial year 1981-82. 8. In facts and circumstances of the case the order shall be declared as null and void as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) has failed to issue Notice of demand u/s 156 to the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PAWAN AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pawan Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Acjpa5377R (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Afhpa9553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Nema Adv & Sh. Ashish Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. The Above Captioned Appeals By Revenue Are Taken Up Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity & These Appeals Are Hereby Disposed Off Through This Consolidated Order; Because, In These Appeals The Tax Effect Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Fixed By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (“Cbdt”, For Short) In Its Circular No. 09/2024 Dated 17.09.2024. Grounds Taken In These Appeals Of Revenue Are As Under: A.Y 2015-16 Sh. Pawan Agarwal Sh. Pankaj Agarwal

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided U/s. 24 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the IT Act against gains arising from sale of capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PANKAJ AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided\nU/s. 24 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in\ndirecting allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the\nIT Act against gains arising from sale of capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

gains of business or profession. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “actual cost” means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority: Provided…. Provided further… Explanation

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,12,22,600/- as against the returned income of Nil. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.26,49,500/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of income from capital gain

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

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Capital Services Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 515]. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. The language of s. 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra). In Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), the period was further stretched to have the time period

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Capital Services Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 515]. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. The language of s. 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra). In Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), the period was further stretched to have the time period

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

22. The Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2005- 06 vide ITA no.124/JAB/2008 and others, adjudicated the very same issue observing as follows:- "12. The next question for our decision is as to whether the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for business purpose or for making investment in FDRS and for that purpose consider

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

22. The Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2005- 06 vide ITA no.124/JAB/2008 and others, adjudicated the very same issue observing as follows:- "12. The next question for our decision is as to whether the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for business purpose or for making investment in FDRS and for that purpose consider

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.

22. The Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2005- 06 vide ITA no.124/JAB/2008 and others, adjudicated the very same issue observing as follows:- "12. The next question for our decision is as to whether the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for business purpose or for making investment in FDRS and for that purpose consider

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.

22. The Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2005- 06 vide ITA no.124/JAB/2008 and others, adjudicated the very same issue observing as follows:- "12. The next question for our decision is as to whether the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for business purpose or for making investment in FDRS and for that purpose consider

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.

22. The Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2005- 06 vide ITA no.124/JAB/2008 and others, adjudicated the very same issue observing as follows:- "12. The next question for our decision is as to whether the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for business purpose or for making investment in FDRS and for that purpose consider

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income for the relevant year. The claim, though confirmed for disallowance by the Tribunal, had been allowed by it for AY 2000-01, and admitted in appeal by the High Court