ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 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) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

assessment proceeding as order passed under section 154 by the AO as the issue raised in proceeding under section 154 is debatable issue and cannot be adjudicated in proceeding under section 154. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.89,108 on account of depreciation claimed by the appellant

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

assessment proceedings for the relevant year found to have claimed an opening Written Down Value (WDV) of it’s block of assets (for the purpose of 1 | P a g e Dy. CIT v. Rajluxmi Enterprises P. Ltd. computing depreciation

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 02/06/2022, the delay was condoned in view of the decision by the Apex Court in 1 | P a g e Sanjay Kumar Agrawal v. Asst. CIT M.A.No. 21/2022, dated

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

depreciation was, under the circumstances, not justified, and directed its deletion. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The respective cases 4.1 The Revenue’s case is that the sole premise of the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) is the non-establishment of the nexus between the funds received by the Bank from GoI and the purchase