YUVIKA ALLOYS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Yuvika Alloys, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1(1), Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan : Aabfy 1482H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajeev Nema, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2022

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter) dated 10/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, since upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi („CIT(A)‟ for short) vide Order dated 18/11/2021. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the memo of appeal, are that the assessee

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

32,617 of the Act, without proper consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” 2. It is seen that the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

32,617 of the Act, without proper consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” 2. It is seen that the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition

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

condoned by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners in the business of builders and developers. It filed e-return of income on 01-10-2016 bearing e-filing acknowledgement Number 476273261011016 declaring total income at Rs. (-) 60,767, which was selected