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)

5. The act of Learned CIT(A) in confirming the order of Learned AO as correct is not justified as the as the additions are not justifiable. 6. The assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order of CIT(A) is bad in law.” 2. The facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for assessment year (AY) 2015- 16 vide order dated 26.12.2017. 1 | P a g e Dy. CIT vs. Tarun Devcon (P.) Ltd. 2.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company in the business of real estate development, having its’ registered

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 examined with the books of accounts of the assessee, which is verified and are placed on record. The assessee was asked to explain as to why low capital gain with respect to sale consideration (higher of AIR & ITR ). The assessee has explained that "the assessee is a builder and contractor engaged in construction / development of land and building. Except

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital work in\nprogress as capital receipts. During the course

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital work in\nprogress as capital receipts. During the course

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

43-46); the AO having (as for AY 2007-08) accepted the assessee's computation, stating so in the assessment order, albeit without mentioning the computation details in the body of the order, as is the case for AY 2007-08. The assessee's contention of the Revenue acting inconsistent for the current year is thus incorrect; rather