KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

48,13,449/- disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna Construction Company expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.20,38,532/- from Executive Engineer, Bansagar, Keoti Canal Division, Rewa, but as per 26AS, the assessee

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay of 55 days in presenting this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 The assessee’s case is that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the it travels beyond the scope of enquiry for which the assessee’s return of income for relevant year, filed on 6.9.2014, was selected for verification by the issue of notice

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

48,980. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, due to the sickness of the partner of the assessee-firm who was looking after its‟ income-tax matters, as stated in the appeal memo, there was a delay of seven days in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A), per an ex parte

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

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

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