M/S AMBIKA TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

3) Any deduction allowable under the provisions of sections 30 to 38 shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed: 2 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/Jab/2013(AYs. 2002-03 & 2003-04) Ambika Transport Co. v. ITO Provided that where the assessee

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

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

3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of s. 147 AO has to assess or reassess the income (“such income”) which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which

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

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

section 69. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 If the assessee did not indeed furnish the bills and vouchers vide which it claims to have purchased the plant and machinery during the relevant year, the only consequence thereof would be the disallowance of deprecation claimed thereon

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 as section 43 does not require establishing any direct relationship between the assistance received under (*) utilization of the same in purchase of assets. 2. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.’ [(*) be read as ‘and’] 1 | P a g e Asst. CIT v. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank 3

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

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.

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

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)

3 A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra sold any such property from or to Smt. Bharti Vaswani. However, he held that the AIR information was quite clear that the assessee had purchased a property worth Rs.701000/- and the assessee has no documentary evidences for the same. Therefore, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.701000/- in this regard and initiated penalty

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

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

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

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)

section 263 order, i.e., to enhancing the income as originally assessed by Rs.5,69,330, even as held by the ld. CIT(A). We, however, do not think so; the revision clearly requiring a fresh consideration of the stated issues as per law after hearing the assessee. The use of the words ‘do novo

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