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

1,56,603/- is not a part of statutory dues nor an\nexpenditure; which is in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee to which provisions\nof section 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 could be invoked.\n5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,21,215/-\nassessed under the head income from other sources

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)

1 Renu Anandani A.Y. 2012-13 4. The Learned CIT confirmed the addition of Rs 3,56,680/on account of online investment when there is no contrary evidence available with him that payment has been made for such investment.AO had considered market rate on the date of transfer to Demat account from physical form and considered it as unexplained investment

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

1,56,603/- is not a part of statutory dues nor an\nexpenditure; which is in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee to which provisions\nof section 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 could be invoked.\n5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,21,215/-\nassessed under the head income from other sources

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.

1. Income/Capital gain on sale of land or building 2. Income from real estate business 3. Sundry creditors 4. Large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover as compared to preceding year 5. Large increase in sundry creditors and reduction in business income as compared to preceding year 6. Low Capital gain with respect to sale consideration (higher

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

56,500/-. This included an addition of Rs. 26,29,800/- under Section 68 of the Act, treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit. 4. The AO also rejected the Appellant’s claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act, pertaining to Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of shares, amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PAWAN AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pawan Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Acjpa5377R (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Afhpa9553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Nema Adv & Sh. Ashish Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. The Above Captioned Appeals By Revenue Are Taken Up Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity & These Appeals Are Hereby Disposed Off Through This Consolidated Order; Because, In These Appeals The Tax Effect Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Fixed By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (“Cbdt”, For Short) In Its Circular No. 09/2024 Dated 17.09.2024. Grounds Taken In These Appeals Of Revenue Are As Under: A.Y 2015-16 Sh. Pawan Agarwal Sh. Pankaj Agarwal

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided U/s. 24 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the IT Act against gains arising from sale of capital asset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PANKAJ AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided\nU/s. 24 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in\ndirecting allowance of deduction of Rs. 1,88,57,399/- under sec. 54F of the\nIT Act against gains arising from sale of capital asset

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.

section 148, he declared a total income of Rs. 81,510/-. The assessee submitted that he had purchased Bitcoins during the year from his SBI NRO account as under:- 2 Anurodh Sahu A.Y. 2018-19 Dated Amount (in Rs.) 20.10.2017 100002.38 23.10.2017 400005.90 23.10.2017 300005.90 03.11.2017 100002.36 27.11.2017 100002.36 Total 1000018.90 It was submitted that investment during the said financial