SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

capital gains, returned u/s. 148(1) at Rs. 30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

capital gains, returned u/s. 148(1) at Rs. 30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

capital gain. u/s 69. 1 A.Y. 2014-15 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 15,70,000/- u/s 69. (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed

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.

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 That no notice under section 263 was issued

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)

28,89,600/-. Therefore, he added back the balance of Rs. 7,16,972/- 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

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

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

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

28 is concerned. Suggesting so therefore implies a complete disregard of the clear provisions of law. It is this difference, which continues to obtain to date in view of no amendment to s. 36(1)(va), that the newly inserted Explanations to ss. 36(1)(va) and 43B emphasize, seeking to, even as clarified 10 ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

28 is concerned. Suggesting so therefore implies a complete disregard of the clear provisions of law. It is this difference, which continues to obtain to date in view of no amendment to s. 36(1)(va), that the newly inserted Explanations to ss. 36(1)(va) and 43B emphasize, seeking to, even as clarified 10 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021

SHRI. NARSINGH RANGA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Narsingh Ranga Dcit, Circle-2(1) V. Sharda Chowk, Nagpur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Napier Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Town, Jabalpur, Madhya 482001. Pradesh-482001. Pan:Acmpr1917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

capital gain scheme or not. That as per the provisions of section 54 of the act only says that the assessee should construct the house that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be completed within stipulated time is view was been taken by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (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 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

capital gain as added to income of Rs26,49,500/- besides addition of income from other sources of Rs2,00,500 (being difference of cash deposition and full sales consideration). Ld. CIT-A has erred in confirming the assessment order with addition. 7. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT -A erred in having

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

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

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.

28,58,585/- Proceedings under section 148 were initiated under the new procedure and a notice was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessee filed a return in response to this notice. The assessee was a non-resident Indian working with a foreign company namely Chevron Transport Corporation Ltd, Hamilton, Bermuda during the year. In the return of income filed, in response

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

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax UP AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider