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

long term borrowings for setting up of the mining\nproject. In the course of setting up of the project, temporarily part of the funds were\ndeposited in the bank on which interest was earned. It was not a case of surplus or\nidle fund invested to earn interest. Since the fund was raised with the primary idea of\n7\nITA

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

long term borrowings for setting up of the mining\nproject. In the course of setting up of the project, temporarily part of the funds were\ndeposited in the bank on which interest was earned. It was not a case of surplus or\nidle fund invested to earn interest. Since the fund was raised with the primary idea of\nsetting

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

disallowing interest Rs.42,16,333/- on loans and advances given by the assessee.” 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of written submissions for the sake of clarity the written submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: - “The Appellant respectfully submits the present appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed

SHRI. NARSINGH RANGA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Narsingh Ranga Dcit, Circle-2(1) V. Sharda Chowk, Nagpur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Napier Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Town, Jabalpur, Madhya 482001. Pradesh-482001. Pan:Acmpr1917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

long term capital gain scheme or not. That as per the provisions of section 54 of the act only says that the assessee should construct the house that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be completed within stipulated time is view was been taken by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,BINA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BINA, BINA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Anil Kumar Jain, Vs. Ito, Bina 7, Shrut Nilay Chaitanya Dham, Bina, Madhya Pradesh Pan:Abzpj8271G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 14.03.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Bina Dated 22.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Vitiated On Several Grounds Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Be Kindly Condoned. 3. That The Order Of The Learned Lower Authorities Passed Are Unlawful & Illegal. 4. That The Learned Lower Authorities Were Not Justified In Not Allowing Proper & Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard. Also The Learned Cit (Appeals), National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, Was Also Not Justified In Not Allowing Any Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Through Digital Media Before Confirming The Disallowance. 5. That The Various Findings Of The Learned Lower Authorities Are Opposed To The Facts Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

disallowance. 5. That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Anil Kumar Jain 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in making and The Learned CIT APPEALS in confirming the addition of Rs.30

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

long term profit of Rs.22,85,781/- and LIC receipts of Rs.73,764/- may be taxed under the head Capital Gains. Accordingly, the questioned Capital Receipts or Other Income are to be examined thoroughly and may be taxed as per the prevailing provisions of the Act. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

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

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 for the relevant year. The claim, though confirmed for disallowance by the Tribunal, had been allowed by it for AY 2000-01, and admitted in appeal by the High Court

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to accumulate 25% of this deemed income because permitting it to do so would amount to a double benefit to the assessee. He, therefore, assessed the entire deemed income