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

3. In this case the assessee being purely educational institution its income was exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. That due to change in law the assessee Trust was required to obtain registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. For this purpose the assessee submitted an application for registration under Section 12AA before

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

3. That, there was sufficient reasons due to which the assessee could not appear before the first appellant authority before passing the order dated 11.09.2024. 4 That, the Ld. First appellate authority is totally unjustified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8153072/- on account of additions made under various heads. Page 2 of 8 5 Under the facts and circumstances

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

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)

3. On the facts and the in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Jt. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the appellant company had inadvertently filed Form No. 10-IB instead of Form No. 10-IC, which is merely a technical error /mistake and benefit of taxation u/s. 115BAA of the Act, as claimed

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

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)

3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section

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)

3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section

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 143(3

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

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

disallowance, since deleted in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‗CIT(A)‘, for short) vide his order dated 08/07/2020 in respect of the assessee‘s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘ hereinafter), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3) of the IT Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lump sum disallowance of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of expenditure incurred on purchase of materials, labour payments, labour welfare expenses and repairs and maintenance aggregating

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

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)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the 1 A.Y.- 2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Revenue, being

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

section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and net income from other sources has been shown Rs. 48,300/- and hence the assessee has wrongly filed ITR in a different form and hence the disallowances have been rightly made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The snippets of the written submission filed by the assesese before

ULTRA CLEAN AND CARE SERVICES P LTD. ,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

10. 14.04.2020 15.01.2020 91945 17239.69 74705.31 91945 11. 24.07.2020 15.02.2020 93715 17571.56 76143.44 93715 12. 24.07.2020 15.05.2020 89930 16861.88 73068.13 89939 13. 17.04.2020 15.05.2020 90953 17053.69 73899.31 90953 Total 259597.88 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.8 & 9/Jab/2023 Ultra Clean and care Ser vices P.Ltd. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly, submitted that disallowance for employee’s share

ULTRA CLEAN AND CARE SERVICES P LTD. ,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

10. 14.04.2020 15.01.2020 91945 17239.69 74705.31 91945 11. 24.07.2020 15.02.2020 93715 17571.56 76143.44 93715 12. 24.07.2020 15.05.2020 89930 16861.88 73068.13 89939 13. 17.04.2020 15.05.2020 90953 17053.69 73899.31 90953 Total 259597.88 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.8 & 9/Jab/2023 Ultra Clean and care Ser vices P.Ltd. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly, submitted that disallowance for employee’s share