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

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

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

29 of this reply. Henceforth it is requested that as assessee has correctly claimed the exemption under section 11A and AO has accepted same in next years intimation under section 143(1). Copy of intimation under section 143(1) of next years are enclosed as page number 30 to 34 of this reply, hence AO may kindly be directed

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 Assessment Year:2014-15 Firm was not paying any payment to partner for the food grains cultivated and used by the assessee firm in its mess. The agriculture expenses were also debited in the mess expenses. Since the assessee Firm had used in its mess the food-grains produced in the agriculture land, the disallowance has been deleted

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

29-40). We agree that the order u/s. 120(40(b) dated 30/11/2006 can have only prospective effect. That, however, would not impact the legality of an assessment made by the Addl. CIT subsequent to that date. Further, the order u/s. 127 dated 31/01/2006 which the assessee challenges could in our view only be before the Hon'ble High Court

M/S NARSINGH EXTRACTION & ALLIED PRODUCTS P. LTD,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Narsingh Extraction & Vs Asst.Cit, Allied Products P.Ltd., Circle-2(1), 389, Gupteshwar Ward, Jabalpur Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn2387H Assessee By Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

section 43B of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id AO was not justified in disallowing Rs. 80,000/- out of packing material expense and Rs. 20,000/- out of refinery chemical expense on conjecture and surmises. 7. That considering the fact that poojan expense of Rs. 96,045/- incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is the letter dated 29/4/2017 by the assessee to Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited (MPPMCL)(PB pg. 72) seeking sanction for approval for commissioning and trial run the plant and machinery installed for power generation (at 12.8 MW). The same, as per the Revenue, by itself proves that no approval had been allowed till then, nor is there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

disallowed expenditure claimed. Tribunal held that though purchases were from bogus parties, nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus, so not the entire amount, but profit margin embedded in such amount only would be subjected to tax. The High Court held, whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially

NARENDRA AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO-WARD 1 (2),, JABALPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 43B. Since, the said challans go to the root of the matter and is the most crucial evidence involved in the case, it is humbly requested before the Hon'ble Bench to accept Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground

KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

29-02-2024, therefore, lacks valid jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly quashed." 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting opinion of the A.O. by that

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

section and legal pronouncements in his context Page 3 of 7 cannot be added ack. Here the Ld. A.O. has 1ot rejected the books oi account u/s 145(3) of the Ac: and has not made the addition for the source oi credit entry (from which sources the cash has been received, although proved to the A.O.) which

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowance as directed by Ld. PCIT. On further appeal, the assessee brought to the knowledge of Ld.CIT(A) that the Tribunal has quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, consequent order of the AO does not survive. However, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order by observing as under:- 5. “During the appellate proceedings the appellant