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 and find no error in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Therefore, we find no merit in ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 12. Ground No. 3 is regarding allowing the relief of Rs.1,01,612/- out of total disallowance of Rs.1,21,807/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3

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

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.

2. That the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- out of various heads of expenses. The addition should be quashed in toto. 3. That there is no justification for confirming disallowance of 10% out of vehicle expenses and depreciation. The disallowance of expenses is unwarranted and without any basis. The same may pleased

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

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 the relevant previous year. The assessment order (at para 1, pg. 3) notes that

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

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 belief of escapement of income shows that such reasons

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

3 is on page no. 28 to 36 of this submission. Few examples of such discrepancies are given herein after:- (a) Oxygen Cylinder- As per computer inventory list the assessee has in stock 695 oxygen cylinder valued at Rs. 2,86,742/-. These 695 oxygen cylinder were received by the assessee during the period from 01/04/2011 to 17/11/2015 in support

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.

2. 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 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

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

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.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that duties and taxes which are reimbursed subsequently are not to be included as input VAT paid on purchases is eligible for set off without VAT liability, input VAT is not to be included in valuation of inventory as per AS2.” 3

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 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

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

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)

2 A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra engaged an Advocate at Jabalpur to handle the case. The assessee had not been kept informed regarding the status of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it was when he received a notice of penalty proceedings from Jabalpur unit that he contacted his C.A. and sent the notices to him. However

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)

2 Rs.18,27,177, and allowing deduction toward interest and salary to the partners thereafter, at Rs.2,49,557/- and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively, i.e., as claimed through the profit and loss account (PB pgs. 12,25), assessed its’ income for the year at Rs.1,4,47,620 vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 25.3.2013 (copy on record). The same