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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (5) The provisions of sections 44AA and 44AB shall not apply in so far as they relate to the business referred to in sub-section (1) and in computing the monetary limits under those sections, the gross receipts or, as the case may be, the income from the said business shall

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

7. The Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in ‘ITO vs. Shri Khajanchand Chhabra’ (supra) held, as follows: "8………………………………………As per the provisions contained in section 147, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

section itself, are illustrative, and it is the purpose for which the same has been given that is relevant. In fact, toward this, the ld. counsel for the assesse, Shri Deshpandey, was asked by the Bench during 5 | P a g e Asst. CIT v. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank hearing, to no satisfactory answer, as to why the receipt

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 of assets. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing relief of Rs.1,01,612/- out of total disallowance of Rs.1,21,807/- made by AO u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred

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 claimed by the appellant at the rate of 30% on Higher vehicle as it was rightly been claimed and addition was confirmed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income

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.

section 269SS and 269T was furnished nil. The order u/s 154 came to be passed on the ground that the assessee had undervalued the closing stock to the extent of Rs.14,48,712/- (12.5% of Rs.1,15,89,701/-) resulting in an over assessment of U.A.D. amounting to Rs.14,48,712/- and the reply of the assessee regarding unsecured loan

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)

7), as under, which had not been considered:(Amount in Rs. lacs) A.Y. GR NP NP(%) 2008-09 181.69 2.71 1.49 2009-10 221.14 2.94 1.33 2010-11 365.44 8.77 2.40 GR =>Gross receipt of the contract business NP=> Net profit of the contract business No adjustment was accordingly called for. Further, the receipt of Rs.2

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

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

depreciation thereon stands claimed, albeit for and under the sugar division. We, accordingly, find no reason for the denial of the eligibility for deduction u/s. 80-IA on the profit derived from power generation, captively consumed by it’s sugar division. We are to this extent in agreement with the ld. CIT(A). The same, however, only decides the aspect

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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO has not considered the various details with respect to the disallowances and surrender of income and the additions are made without any evidences and no adequate opportunity of hearing was provided. The Ld. AR emphasized on the each ground of appeal of the revenue and made exhaustive submissions on the disputed