NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

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

1)(a) is not permissible on both these aspects. Therefore, we allow appeal of the assessee, and delete both the disallowances." 8. In the light of the above, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee's own case for the Asst. Year 2015-16, wherein the disallowances were being made under section

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are decided as under:- (i) The assessee has spent a sum of Rs. 7,38,400/- on publication of advertisement of obituary, of director of the assessee company. This expense was in the nature of personal expense hence the AO disallowed

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

section 271(1)(c) deems concealment of particulars of income where the conditions set out in clause (A) or clause (B) of the said Explanation 1 are not met. The assessee stating of prior period expenses being not liable to be disallowed

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:

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 be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case

SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

disallowance could be made by the A.O. for overriding payment of commission to kamal kumar Ahilya addition is unwarranted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has not issued any notice in terms of Section 251(4) denying Opportunity to the assessee before changing the basis of addition from 40(a)(ia) to none proving of Section 37(1

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 115BAA of the Act in the ITR Form filed for the year under consideration and not filing Form No. 10-IC is merely a technical lapse and benefit of taxation u/s. 115BAA of the Act cannot be 1 A.Y. 2023-24 Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes P. Ltd. denied merely because of procedural error when other conditions are fulfilled

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowing the claim made by the appellant on account of employee's A.R. Transport vs ITO contribution of PF at Rs 2,37,773/- as the same was paid on or before the due date of filling of the Income Tax Return and is to be allowed as per the proviso of section 36(1

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

1) of section 36; 54[(d) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub - section (4) of section 80P.] 14. We find that, the ld. CIT(A) held that, Section 43B are applicable in the case where

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)

disallowed this claim and added these amounts to the income of the assessee in the respective assessment years. In the assessment year 2014-15, as the assessee filed its return beyond the due date laid down under section 139(1

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)

disallowed this claim and added these amounts to the income of the assessee in the respective assessment years. In the assessment year 2014-15, as the assessee filed its return beyond the due date laid down under section 139(1

JILA SAHAKARI BANK MARYDIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(2),

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 231/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sadan, Wright Town, Vs Ward 1(2), Jabalpur (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aaajj 0118 J / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 9Th June 2016 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/Ward/1(3)/Jbp/079/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 144/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 27.03.2015 Framed By The Ito, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur.

1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. On few occasions none appeared; accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 144/143(3) of the Act making various additions on the basis of financial statements and audit report available on record. Learned Assessing Officer made a disallowance

M/S VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP, 656, VIJAY NAGAR , DAMOH ROAD , ,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1) , JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Varsma Engineers Vs Asst. Director Of Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Income Tax, Cpc, Damoh Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bengaluru. Acit, Circle-1(1), Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefv7885Q Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2022 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year 2020-21, Raising Following Grounds:-

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 03.11.2021, wherein contribution to Employees State Insurance [“ESI”]/Provident Fund [“PF”] amounting to Rs. 4,56,690/- was disallowed and adjusted to the returned income. On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) referred the amendment made to section

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.

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs.20,195/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of 3 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of 3 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition

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, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “actual cost” means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority: Provided…. Provided further… Explanation 1 – 9 … Explanation 10.- Where a portion of the cost of an asset acquired

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S.TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION (PAN AACFT8104E), OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BURHAR, DIST.- SHAHDOL (M.P.)

In the result, issue no.3 raised by the Revenue in ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 25/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Tirupati Construction, Income-Tax, Vs Opp. Railway Station, Burhar, Central Circle Distt. – Shahdol (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aacft 8104 E / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr Assessee By : Shri B.K. Nema, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Jabalpur Dated 14.03.2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit(A)2/Jbp/Acit/Cir/Katni/024/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 17.03.2015 Framed By The Acit, Circle-Katni.

Section 44AB of the Act and all the impugned expenses and purchases have been examined by the ld. CIT(A) and no mistake has been pointed out by the First Appellate Authority. Learned Departmental Representative has also been unable to prove any distinguishing fact to show that in the past such disallowances have been made which have been confirmed

M/S SRBH EBGUNEERING & EQUIPMENT PVT LTD DELHA MOD, SARLA NAGAR , MAIHAR DISTT SATNA(M.P),SATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DCIT CIR KATNI, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench, following it’s decision in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021). Sh. Mehrotra, the ld. Sr. DR, would, on asking, concede to this being