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

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

30 plots and sold to various persons. He also noticed that most of these plots had been sold in cash and at below market rates, and therefore held that capital gains were attracted in the hands of the assessee as per provisions of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

30 09 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.10.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Whether in the facts

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

30,65,156/- only and balance of Rs 2,12,429/- representing surplus out of 15% of Rs 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

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

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern

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

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern

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.

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern

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.

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern

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.

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income Tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern