DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. RAJLUXMI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NARSHINGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is disposed of on the above terms

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

depreciation for Rs. 31,63,707, for which the amount an adjustment to the returned income in assessment was confirmed by him, deleting the balance addition

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation may kindly be allowed as expenditure to the business income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal. Vijay Oil Mills Co., Jabalpur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and derives income from house property and income from business. The assessee has filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S BHASKAR LUBRICANT PRIVATE LIMITED, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

income of NIL and was allowed to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.17,40,716/-. Notice u/s 154 of the Act was issued to the assessee with regard to valuation of closing stock at Rs.1,15,89,701/- without including the VAT of Rs.14,48,712/-. It is the case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

addition of Rs.1,01,259/-made in the total income by disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation in financial year 2013- 14 and found that the plant & machinery were put to use on 03/05/2014 amounting to Rs.15,38,092/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 10. The learned CIT(A), while deleting the addition

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)

Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,470/- made by the AO on the ground that these expenses could not be fully verified, whereas the appellant has submitted vouchers in support of these expenses, even after submitting supporting documents the addition was made by the AO. 9. The appellant craves

RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalerishabh Kumar Jain, Vs Ito-1, Prop. Of M/S. Roop Chand Sagar Jain, H.No.146, Lig, Gour Nagar, Makroniya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470004. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amwpj0852F Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2023

income of assessee from any stand of imagination and hence GP rate should have been applied for making correct addition. Accordingly addition of Rs. 15,37,984/-may kindly be deleted. 4. Looking to facts and circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground no 1 and 2 CIT (A) erred in confirming addition

M/S.ANUJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,BATUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BATUL

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Anuj Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, College Road, Betulganj, Aaykarbhawan, Civil Lines, Betul (Mp) 460001 Betul (M.P.) Pan: Aaofa3419K (Appellant) (Respondent)

additional ground, challenging the revision in estimate, in its’favour, even as the ld. CIT(A) has also held like-wise, so that there is no warrant for the said Ground; the Revenue being not in appeal. We, therefore, find no basis for either a review of the said estimate, revised to 8%,or for regardingit as having been made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Income Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’ hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, per its’ sole ground, reading as under: ‘1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,33,72,693/- on account of claim of depreciation

SMT. LALITA BAI KHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact not escaped assessment

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

depreciation. The disallowance of expenses is unwarranted and without any basis. The same may pleased be deleted in toto. 4. That there is no justification in confirming addition of Rs.15,000/- for alleged low household expenses. The addition should be quashed in toto. 5. Any other ground that may arise at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apropos

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. Ground # 1 is in respect of an addition for u/s. 69 for Rs. 411.98 lacs in respect of what the assessee claims to be an addition to it’s plant and machinery during

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

income. Therefore, the queries raised again and again in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s 144 of the Act were the same as in the regular asstt. order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 26.02.2014 as well in the asstt. order passed U/Ss 143(3)/147 dtd. 20.06.2016. 4. That the AO has not recorded any satisfaction

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

income. Therefore, the queries raised again and again in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s 144 of the Act were the same as in the regular asstt. order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 26.02.2014 as well in the asstt. order passed U/Ss 143(3)/147 dtd. 20.06.2016. 4. That the AO has not recorded any satisfaction