INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. SHAKTI MAHILA SANGH BAHU-UDDESHIYA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, MAJHOLI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu-Uddeshiya 1(1), Jabalpur, M.P. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Majholi Pan:Aafas3026A (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the assessee and hence it was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the ld. AO was not justified in disallowing

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:

business of poultry. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 53,30,16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

disallowed u/s. 14A, inserted only by Finance Act, 2001. The borrowed capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income

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

business, Ld CIT (A) erred in disallowing interest Rs. 1,93,050/- paid thereon. 8 Considering the fact that interest Rs. 10,286/- paid by the assessee on the late deposit of TDS is compensatory in nature and its disallowance is not provided, in income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SIDDHIVINAYAK EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

income from business and profession. Accordingly, AO disallowed expenditure claimed under section 57 of Rs. 2,46,00,672/- out of total

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.P.Tobacco Products Vs Asst.Cit, Pvt.Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar (M.P.) Damoh (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

business income. With due respect the facts of the case of the assessee are different in so far as the interest income has no direct nexus with the profits of the industrial undertaking as per provisions of section 80-IA of the Act and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pandian Chemicals

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.

business income for the reason that agricultural income does not form part of the total income under the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

business should be treated as revenue income ('income from other sources') or as a capital receipt to reduce the cost of capital work in progress. A secondary issue relates to the disallowance

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

disallowance u/s. 80P (for rs. 749.41 lacs) is, thus, without any basis on facts or in law. Even assuming that the said income, which would though have to be worked out at net of expenses there-against, is regarded as assessable separately as ‗income from other sources‘, it would only imply a corresponding reduction in the income assessable as ‗business

NARMADA INN,BESIDE SHUBH MOTORS, KATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDLA WARD, MANDLA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Narmada Inn, V. Income Tax Officer, Beside Shubh Motors, Katra, Mandla Ward, Mp-481661. Mandla, Mp-481661. Pan:Aagfn9764J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri H. S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

disallowance made at Rs.2,30,149/- on account of payment of Provident Fund is unjustified. 4. That the confirmation of rent receipt of Rs.8,86,840/- considered as house property income as against the business

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

business income and Rs.12,695/- as income from other sources, thereby determining the income of the assessee at Rs.5,95,18,164/-. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) records that he issued six notices to the assessee for hearing but did not receive any compliance to anyone

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

income have been furnished. (2) That the learned AO erred in disallowed the claim on the ground that the news of death of a Director was of personal nature i.e obituary of a related person to the company which does not serve any business

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

business out of funds\navailable for setting up project, would be of capital nature and cannot be assessed\nunder the head, \"income from other source”. The ld. CIT(A) held that a perusal of the\nassessment order did not indicate that the AO had distinguished the said case to be\ninapplicable to the facts of the assessee's case

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

business. The disallowance being arbitrary and excessive be deleted or suitably reduced in the interest of justice. Disallowance u/s. 14A: 3. Having perused entire record, we find that the assessee has earned and dividend income

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

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

disallowed for diversion of interest bearing funds for non- business purposes. On perusal of the reply filed by the assessee, the ld. AO observed that she had given advances of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to one Sh. Kekin Kunverji Chheda and charged interest at 2.67%, but she was paying interest @ 12% to her husband, Sh. Nitin Shah. He, therefore

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

income from it‟s real estate business and, thus, fall within the ambit of the limited scrutiny for which the assessee‟s return was selected for being subject to the verification procedure under the Act. Further, none of these stands examined by the AO in assessment, rendering his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, subject

M/S. R M SALES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

disallowed the inadmissible expenditures from P/L A/c and added back while computing total income and offered tax accordingly. Page 2 of 4 5. That the aggregate addition of Rs 2,87,332/- has led to be a double addition, being unwarranted and perverse, hence deserves to be deleted.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

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

business. The disallowance of interest is unwarranted the addition of Rs. 5,28,665/- should be deleted. 3. The addition of Rs. 91,233/- u/s.43B is uncalled for should be deleted. 4. The assessment order framed by additional commissioner is without jurisdiction. The additional ground should have been allowed. The order of assessment should be annulled. 5. The learned