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 VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

28-29), para 2 whereof clarifies the scope of enquiry in a case selected under CASS. Only specific issue based enquiry is to be made in the cases selected under CASS. If the AO wishes to enquire or examine other aspects of the return, including the capital gain on the property under reference, the same would require him to, following

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

28,568 (u/s. 115-JB), paying tax (including interest Rs.9.98 lacs) at Rs.102.50 lacs on the latter income, at which income the same was assessed u/s. 143(3) on 16.12.2010. Subsequently, it was observed that prior period income of Rs. 6636.02 lacs, credited to the profit and loss account and duly returned as income for the year

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

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 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father

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

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 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father

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

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

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)

2 Renu Anandani A.Y. 2012-13 property but only net short term capital gain of Rs. 3,69,039/- had been shown in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. At the time of passing of the assessment order, the ld. AO had not added the full amount of short term capital gain on the sale

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

28 of this reply. In lieu of above said registration assessee trust has rightly claimed the deduction of Rs.17,41,99/- under section 11(2) and hence income of trust remains as NIL. The copy of computation of income of assessee is also enclosed as page number 29 of this reply. Henceforth it is requested that as assessee has correctly

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

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

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

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

28,36,750/- made by AO is not correct as the assessee has invested the amount of sale proceed of Rs. 2,64,20,000/- within the period of 3 years from the date of sale of property. For the year under consideration AO has only to verify that the amount o investment which is to be deposited under section

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

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

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