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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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 as section

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:

section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation of income as to be deduction from business income. Hence

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.

1,02,53,945/- machinery @15% The learned Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had purchased the machinery after the year which is under consideration i.e. financial year 2013-14 and claimed the 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

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

1. ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437. 2. C.I.T. vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 311 ITR 236. 3. ITO vs. Shri Khajanchand Chhabra in ITA No.164/JAB/2006, passed on 2/8/2006. 3. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 4. A reading of the reasons recorded by the A.O. for forming

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 06.12.2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under: 1. That the learned first appellate authority has erred in arbitrarily conforming the addition of Rs. 8,43,219/- made by the learned assessing authority by ,1 Bindra Warehousing

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)

section 271(1)(c). The ld. AO also observed that the assessee, who is a property developer had shown a sum of Rs.1,04,56,475/- towards land development. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the land which had been developed and he submitted the same. However, he was unable to submit vouchers on the basis

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

1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every

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

Depreciation granted @ 30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

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

Depreciation granted @ 30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

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.

Section 68 of the Act alongwith disallowance of some expenses amounting to Rs.2,03,850/- and assessee total income at Rs.36,03,190/-. Appeal before the ld. CIT(A) brought part relief to the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal. “1. That the Learned CIT(A) as well

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for 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

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.

1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in not quashing the assessment proceeding as order passed under section 154 by the AO is not the mistake apparent from the record. Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, Jabalpur. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in not quashing the assessment proceeding as order passed under section

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.

depreciation of Rs.2,92,004/- vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 09/07/2018, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.14,48,712/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

section को Tally software म" account संबं"ध जानका"रयाँ transfer हो जाता हैये दोन" ह" software search के दौरान seize "कए गए है एवं आपके पास उपल"ध ह"। अ"पताल क" "वषाल "प देखते ह" एवं इन software क" गुणव"ा देखते हुए हमारे A/c संपूण" "प से maintained ह" एवं ठेकेदार" को "दया गया cash िजसे मे पूव

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)

1, Bhopal (‘CIT’ for short) vide order u/s.263 dated 31.3.2015 (copy on record). The AO, it was observed therein, had: (a) not brought to tax other income of Rs.1,77,273/-, being Jeep rent (Rs.59,299) and bank interest (Rs.1,17,974/-); (b) allowed the assessee interest and remuneration to partners at Rs.3,79,557/-, as debited to the profit