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)

29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed

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)

29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed

NAGENDRA SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(5) , JABALPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nagendra Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ward - 2(5), Gwalior Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Ctops 5067G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mahesh Agarwal, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2022

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide Order dated 25/10/2019. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal is delayed by 29 days. There is, however, a condonation

JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH BAGRI,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD , , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 147 and under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and on facts and against the principles of natural justice. Jitendra Pratap Singh Bagri, Satna. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,57,000/- made by the Assessing

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

29-03-2021 under section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the “Act” hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. There was delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal which has been condoned