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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 13.12.2023 and 22.01.2024, dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. The grounds of appeal in these two cases are as under:- ITA No.-15/JAB/2024 “1. That on the facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 13.12.2023 and 22.01.2024, dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. The grounds of appeal in these two cases are as under:- ITA No.-15/JAB/2024 “1. That on the facts

RAJADHAR SHARMA,PRITHVIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIKAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Capital Gain and addition of Rs.51,222/- on account of unexplained interest income. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 10/10/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The said impugned order arises out of the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, wherein the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.26,29,800/-under section 68 and denied the claim of exemption under section

MAHESHWARI MUKUND DAS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaheshwarimukunddas, Vs. Ito, Ward -2 1288, D B Vallbh Das Jabalpur Palace, Hanumantal, 2Nd Floor, Anxe Bldg, Jabalpur-482002, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhya Pradesh. Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh.

250 of the Act.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in accepting the actual sale consideration as received by the appellant for the purpose of capital gain MaheswariMukund Das, Jabalpur. considering to the adverse possession and property was in encroachment. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.07.2024 by which the appeal against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Chhindwara dated 12.09.2016 have been dismissed as withdrawn. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the Ld. A.O. has in disallowing the erred cash deposits of Rs. 46,42,500.00 disregarding the actual facts, cash book

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: -

250 without seeking any clarification or valuation report regarding the value of the property acquired before the financial year 198182. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Learned AO Page 2 of 4 while making addition of Long Term Capital Gain to the income

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. 1,19,14,912/- and Rs.7,00,000/- claimed towards development expenses. The AO has called for various details and clarifications and on enquiry, the AO found that the land

RITA MANCHANI,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,41,770/- by making I.T.A. No.60/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14 2 addition of Rs.5,53,428/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,BINA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BINA, BINA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Anil Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, Bina 7, Shrut Nilay Chaitanya Dham, Bina, Madhya Pradesh Pan:Abzpj8271G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 14.03.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Bina Dated 22.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Vitiated On Several Grounds Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Be Kindly Condoned. 3. That The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Passed Are Unlawful & Illegal. 4. That The Learned Lower Authorities Were Not Justified In Not Allowing Proper & Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard. Also The Learned Cit (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, Was Also Not Justified In Not Allowing Any Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Through Digital Media Before Confirming The Disallowance. 5. That The Various Findings Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Opposed To The Facts Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO, Bina dated 22.12.2017. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly

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: -

250 of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law on facts and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act ie the Ld. CTT(A) has erred 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

Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income tax Act 1961. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the decision of the CIT(A) in denial of relief of foreign Tax Credit as the Form.No.67 was not filed before due date of filling of return of income U/sec139(1) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing