BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

32 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,910Delhi6,765Bangalore2,378Chennai2,087Kolkata1,901Ahmedabad1,669Pune1,299Hyderabad1,159Jaipur1,087Indore581Chandigarh580Surat450Raipur369Visakhapatnam349Rajkot297Cuttack290Cochin271Amritsar248Karnataka233Nagpur228Lucknow216Agra157Guwahati103Jodhpur87Allahabad86Panaji80Ranchi78SC74Telangana67Dehradun65Patna55Calcutta51Jabalpur32Varanasi26Kerala23Punjab & Haryana11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh3Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25Addition to Income25Disallowance18Section 4012Section 143(1)12Section 14411Section 15410Section 115B10Section 2639Section 37(1)

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

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

30,65,156/- only and balance of Rs 2,12,429/- representing surplus out of 15% of Rs 19,91,638/- also results in nil income chargeable to tax. 4. Non-Capital Expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- if clubbed with 15% of total receipts of Rs 1,32,77,585.25 comes to Rs 1,33,14,795/-, henceforth

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

9
Deduction9
Depreciation6
ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

30,300/- out of telephone and mobile expenses, vehicle expenses & office expenses and further disallowed the interest paid Rs.21,215/- on account of late deposit of TDS. Aggrieved by the deletion of addition, the Department has preferred the appeal in I.T.A.No.104/JBP/2018 and the assessee filed Cross I.T.A. No.104/Jab/2018 C.O.No.03/Jab/2018 4 Assessment Year:2014-15 Objection No.3/JAB/2018 aggrieved

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

ITA 184/JAB/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Apoorva Rajesh Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

10-IC could not be filed on time. We also observe that the judgment in PCIT Bengaluru III vs Wipro Ltd (Supra) that has been relied upon by the assessee, would not fit with the facts of the assessee’s case as in this case the assessee had filed the option to avail concessional rate of tax before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAGAR vs. SHRI BIRMANAND SUNDRANI, SAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 61/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2014-15   Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Birmanand Sundarani, Income-Tax, Vs Sindhi Colony, Bina, Sagar (Mp) Circle Sagar Pan : Anjps 0520 P / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Jabalpur Dated 4Th September, 2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance to 30% of salary ignoring the fact that the allowability of expenses in previous assessment year would not obviate the need to establish the expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the business. ACIT Vs. Shri Birmanand Sundrani AY : 2014-15 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving cognizance to the fact that the amount of Rs.49

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

ITA 55/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

disallowance of Rs. 48,13,449/ out of sub-let wages of Rs. 1,60,44,830/- under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source under sec. 194C of the Act without any opportunity to the appellant is unjustified, unwarranted and arbitrary. The same deserves to be deleted in toto

M/S RAMBILAS GATTANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 01/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   M/S. Rambilas Gattani, Income Tax Officer, Mohta Plot, Tilak Ward, Vs Ward 1, Pipariya, Dist. Hoshangabad

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

30,000/- made on account of the difference in valuation of closing stock of gram and soyabean account. At any rate the addition sustained is highly excessive and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified

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

ITA 25/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 43B

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

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

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Given the clear law, the issue arising to our mind is principally one of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any settlement has been, as claimed, arrived at between the parties, much less during the current year, i.e., on the first day of the accounting year, on which the debit notes were entered

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

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

ITA 231/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

disallowance of the provision for bad and doubtful debts for Rs.3,05,30,820/- as well as enhancement of income by learned CIT(A) by Rs.69,180/-. Before moving ahead, we would first like to peruse the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 the Act, which contemplates that “a scheduled

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SIDDHIVINAYAK EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 28Section 57

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI vs. SMT.NIRMALA PATHAK, KATNI

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and C

ITA 2/JAB/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)

section 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee declared the LTCG of Rs. 1,93,91,750/- under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and paid the entire taxes. According to ld. Representative, if at all any disallowance that may be made for the A.Y.2015-16 and not for A.Y.2014-15. Furthermore there cannot be any addition for A.Y.2015-16 also, since

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 51/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 77/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 78/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 52/JAB/2018[2015-16 (Quarter: 2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

30% on Dumpers which is excessive as Dumper is not a motor lorry. 6. The ld. PCIT has observed that non-application of mind for proper examination of case has rendered the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the case of assessee, regular assessment has been made

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 15/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 144

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 02/06/2022, the delay was condoned in view of the decision by the Apex Court

ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATNI

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

ITA 46/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 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) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri.ShivKumar. Sr. DR
Section 154

section 154. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.89,108 on account of depreciation claimed by the appellant at the rate of 30% on Higher vehicle as it was rightly been claimed and addition was confirmed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income