SUPREME TRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA BHAWAN vs. DCIT, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Supreme Tractors Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Katni, Madhya Pradesh 483501. Katni, Madhya Pradesh- 483501. Pan:Aajcs4013M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sahil Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

69,395 @ 1% for 12 months: ₹1,76,316 Total interest payable ₹2,64,474 The aforesaid capital gains and MAT liability were duly disclosed in the return of income and the entire tax was discharged by way of self- assessment tax, resulting in no loss to the revenue. 6. That the interest under section

SHRI NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha V. Pr. C.I.T.-2 C/O Samapat Lal & Sons Jabalpur Raghunath Ganj Katni Tan/Pan:Afhpg3398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

section 50C, the capital gain, after allowing the index cost of the acquisition works out to Rs.82,69,800/-; that

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

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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

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

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

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)

section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain of Rs. 3,69

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

capital gain in the assessment year 2016-17 against the sale of two properties and had not shown the correct sale consideration against the sale of property named, “House 184.80 Sq.mtr”. She had declared sale consideration of Rs.42,69,411/- against the sale of property named, “House 184.80 Sq mtr” in the ITR filed

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

69,383 against Rs. 19,53,664 shown by the appellant without appreciating that it is settled law that fair market value of the area should be taken as cost of acquisition as various factors like location, area, size, infrastructure facilities around the area, potential future development have to be taken into consideration and the value was taken

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

69 stands, in any case, made out, and that the only possible consequence of non-substantiation of it’s claim of having acquired plant and machinery would be non-allowance of depreciation – for the current and even subsequent years (Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC)), no case for which, again, stands made

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.

gain was computed on the basis of summary transactions provided by the Koinex exchange. As per the same, assessee had made purchases of the value of Rs. 1,31,31,481/- and sales of Rs. 1,28,58,585/-. Thus, prima facie, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,72,896/-. Accordingly, the AO decided to allow