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

10 the Board in Circular No. 16 of 2022 dated 19-07-2022 issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year

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

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, i.e., Rs. 238.29 lacs. Where and what, one may ask, is the ambiguity, either on facts or in law? The Apex Court in CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC), a decision by its' larger bench, reversed the decision by the 12 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court wherein it was held that penalty

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

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

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)

10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous

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)

10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the MP state co-operative marketing federation limited Jabalpur and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous

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

disallowed the following payments u/s. 43B a) Service Tax Collected Rs.22,65,73,334/- b) Swatch Bharat Cess Rs. 1,06,68,102/- c) Kisan Kalyan Cess Rs. 42,52,993/- d) Tax deducted at source Rs.1,88,16,240/- 9. The appellant has also stated that opening balance in TDS payable account as on 01.04.2016 is at Rs. 1

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

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.

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.8 lakhs. We, therefore, dismiss ground no.4 as not pressed. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 relate to claim of assessee towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. Both the lower authorities have denied this benefit. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Central Co-operative Bank

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.

section 40A(3) is reduced from 1,21,807/- to Rs. 20195/-. In result, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 1,01,612/-. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. Heard the parties and perused the materials. The learned CIT(A) being a fact finding authority found that all the payments made to the parties except the payment

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

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

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 tax act specifically. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount of interest Rs. 10286/- paid on the late deposit of TDS without quoting under

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

10 CTR 0375 (SC), in which it is decided that interest expenditure on borrowings is not allowed if the same is not related to the business of the assessee. The amount of Rs. 11,59,23,319/- on account of interest on borrowed fund is not eligible for disallowance u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. As the borrowed fund

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

10 CTR 0375 (SC), in which it is decided that interest expenditure on borrowings is not allowed if the same is not related to the business of the assessee. The amount of Rs. 11,59,23,319/- on account of interest on borrowed fund is not eligible for disallowance u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. As the borrowed fund

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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act on 20.10.2016. A demand of Rs. 18,93,058/- was raised. Later on, a 143(2) notice was issued on 02.01.2018 fixing the case on 15.01.2018 which was obviously barred by limitation and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 on 28.03.2018 that was served on the assessee

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

1) is clearly toward obtaining information deemed relevant by the assessing authority from the assessee. The second function of the said notice is to cause furnishing of a return of income where the same has not been furnished u/s. 139, and which is clearly not the case. In sum, the Ground is without merit and, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Ground