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

25% of the total income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 inclusive of the deemed income under section 11 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Moitra, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has failed to show any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In fact, he has prayed merely for remand

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

25,08,172/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

25,08,172/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

condone the delay in filling the Form No. 67 and the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of A.O and dismissed the appeal. We find in respect of foreign tax credit (FTC), the assessee is required to file Form.no. 67 with details of the statement of income from a country or specified territory outside India and foreign tax credit

I M C OF ITI ,GOTEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPURAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Imc Of Iti,Gotegaon, Vs. Ito (Exemption) Annex Bldg, Mission Jabalpur, Chowk, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh- Madhya Pradesh- 482001. 482001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai2999F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act.

section 139(4) (e), which require filling of ITR mandatory w.e.f 1.4.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016-17 2. That the CIT(appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of refund Rs. 69290/-alleging not having filed the ITR-7 on 14.06.2013 ask acknowledgment No. 299140613004324 affixed on forwarding letter, as per practice, not affixing seal on the ITR page, without confirming

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of AIR information according to which the assessee had purchased land. The ld. AO observed that with regard to a sum of Rs.701000/-, the assesseee submitted a written response that

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoning delays in previous years, we hold that in a situation where the assessee had clearly indicated its intent to avail a concessional rate, the claim under section 115BAA ought not to have been disallowed to it only on account of a mistake in the format in which the option had been exercised, if it was otherwise eligible. We also

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

25,000 per acre, accompanied by a cheque (No.145203, dated 02/01/2005) for Rs.1 lac as advance. Differences arose between the parties soon thereafter, with each side raising claim/s on the other. The buyer, a Jabalpur-based partnership firm by the name M/s. Om Sai Prakash Constructions (OC), filed a suit for specific performance (of the agreement dated 21.8.2005), which

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

25,000 per acre, accompanied by a cheque (No.145203, dated 02/01/2005) for Rs.1 lac as advance. Differences arose between the parties soon thereafter, with each side raising claim/s on the other. The buyer, a Jabalpur-based partnership firm by the name M/s. Om Sai Prakash Constructions (OC), filed a suit for specific performance (of the agreement dated 21.8.2005), which