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 of Rs.29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

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.

10. The learned CIT(A), while deleting the addition, held as under: “6.2.3. DECISION:- I have carefully considered the submission put forth & the documents furnished on behalf of the appellant, perused the facts of the case and the observation of the AO in the impugned assessment order and other material brought on record. The AO has disallowed depreciation

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)

disallowance may be confirmed. 5. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that in the instant case, the assessee had inadvertently filed Form 10-IB before the due date of filing of the return, which is the prescribed form for availing the concessional rate of tax for manufacturing companies under section

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

10,286/- paid by the assessee on the late deposit of TDS is compensatory in nature and its disallowance is not provided, in income tax act specifically. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount of interest Rs. 10286/- paid on the late deposit of TDS without quoting under which section

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

10 through speed post on 31.08.2015 to the Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jabalpur. The assessee is, therefore, entitled for benefit of Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Same may please be allowed. I.T.A. No.235/JAB/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 5 E. In this case the assessee has submitted Form No.10 by speed post on 31.08.2015 before the Income

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

10,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.” 2. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the material available on record. In the case of the assessee, more than Rs.25 lacs cash was deposited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR vs. SHRI RISHAV KUMAR JAIN, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

10,54,750 Labor Welfare 1,80,550 Labor Equipment 2,50,130 Labor Deduction 6,99,317 Labor Charges 3,11,64,117 Loading Charges 2,59,170 Office Expenses 2,02,733 Other Deductions 30,64,923 Royalty 17,55,222 Stationery 25,430 Tender Fees 79,387 Other Taxes 78,475 Vehicle Maintenance 6,60,605 Water

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. HARISHCHAND NEMICHAND DUGAD, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Harishchand Nemichand Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Jabalpur, M.P. Dugad, Chhindwara, M.P. Pan:Aabhh3293K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 19.06.2019 has been partially allowed. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 801B(10

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

10 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. [Provided that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act on any sale of goods which in accordance with the provisions of sub - section (3) of section ~ is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India.] The above provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance was restricted by the learned CIT(A) @10% out of the expenditure pertaining to mine development and sub-contract. The said approach of CIT(A) is found to be reasonable which requires no interference at the hands of this Tribunal as the Department has not pointed out any defect in the books of account. Accordingly, ground

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)

10,566/- and thereafter claiming this entire amount as deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed at returned income. Subsequently, the PCIT-1, Jabalpur passed an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on 14.02.2022 and held this order passed under section

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ,NARSINGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 43B, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of this amounts u/s 43B. 4. Considering the fact that the income of assessee is fully exempt u/s 10

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,NARSINGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 43B, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of this amounts u/s 43B. 4. Considering the fact that the income of assessee is fully exempt u/s 10

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

disallowed expenditure claimed under section 57 of Rs. 2,46,00,672/- out of total receipt of Rs. 2,46,48,97 2/-. 10

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.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16/12/2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the said order is SET ASIDE FOR DE- NOVO CONSIDERATION, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order. The A.O. is further directed to pass a suitable order

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

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

disallowed 10 percent lump-sum of salary by stating that the\nexpenses are not explained properly. Addition made by AO is not correct\nand the same may kindly be deleted. Against the order passed assessee\nmade an appeal before the CIT (A) but the notice of hearing were not\nreceived by the assessee as the notice were sent

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)

disallowed 10% of these expenses and made an addition of Rs. 13,470/-. 5. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) in his order 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

disallowance of the interest. The Tribunal held that if there could be two views about the claims of the assessee, the explanation offered by it cannot be said to be false. The penalty was accordingly deleted by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was maintained by the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue, before