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

income of Rs. 2,93,26,465/- for A.Y 2016-17 and passed the common order for A.Y 2010-11 to 2016-17 U/sec143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act dated 26.12.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging additions and disallowances

PHOENIX POULTRY,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 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) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

addition made of Rs 9,03,280/- on account of the delay in employee PF and ESI payments are the disputed matters and cannot be dealt in order u/s 143(1). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that interest under section 234A and 234 B cannot

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

disallowed when no income from exempt income was disclosed. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition

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.

income of Rs.8,38,28,640/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 12/02/2018, deleted various additions and upheld/confirmed the disallowance

GAYATRI DEVI AGRAWAL,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -BALAGHAT , BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

addition of Rs. 5740/- on account of disallowing travelling Expenses claimed which is unjustified, uncalled for, flawed and infirm. 8. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not giving opportunity of being heard. 9. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to apply principal of natural 0 Justice. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Income Tax deducted at source without appreciating the facts on the basis of which the addition was made by admitting additional evidence without affording adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer for verification. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the various addition/ disallowances

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:

disallowance of Rs. 1,82,009/- being deduction from rental income under 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

VISHAL DATT,JABLPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”], pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19. For the sake of convenience, all appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. First, we will take up the appeal of assessee in ITA. No. 77/JAB/2024, pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14 is taken

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”], pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19. For the sake of convenience, all appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. First, we will take up the appeal of assessee in ITA. No. 77/JAB/2024, pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14 is taken

RAMJIDAS BUDHRAJA CHARITABLE TRUST (SGM),CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed-Assessee claimed the same in appeal for asst. yr. 1985-86 pending before CIT(A) by way of additional ground-Expenditure being genuine and claim being bona fide, Tribunal was justified in holding that CIT(A) ought to have entertained the additional ground. (iii) ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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.

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% without appreciating that in earlier and subsequent years deprecation was duly allowed as a part of Block of asset and merely on presumption it cannot be disallowed

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

addition is called for as appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and was also audited under the Cooperative Act. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in appreciating that AO should have coordinated with the PCIT with regard to the benefit of circular No.13/2023 as during the course of assessment proceeding appellant have duly

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

additions made under various heads. Page 2 of 8 5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) erred in not accepting Rs. 2,33,394/- as agriculture income out of Rs. 5,58,660- /earned and declared by the assessee. 6 Considering the facts that assessee had receive a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Income Tax (Appeals)\n[hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”], pertaining to the\n assessment year 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19. For the sake of\nconvenience, all appeals were heard together and are being\ndisposed off by this consolidated order. First, we will take up the\nappeal of assessee in ITA. No. 77/JAB/2024, pertaining

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

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

income not on record. This assumes relevance as the assessee has, as per the assessment order, claimed deduction u/s. 80P(1) at Rs. 13,76,224, while the Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed, in addition

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

income twice; hence unjustified and bad in law. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Rs 12,55,692 CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming addition of Long Term Capital Gain, firstly by taking cost of acquisition of Land only instead to include the cost of building thereto and Secondly by disallowing