SHRI NAMIYUN PARSWANATH JAIN, SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

section 11 not given and can not be disallowed u/s 143(1) being disputable by the CPC as not being

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.

11 Assessment Year:2014-15 the assessee gets the relief of Rs.3,99,129/- in this ground of appeal.” 22. It is found that there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to make disallowance of Rs.5,99,129/- which is 25% of the expenses debited under the different heads which are of personal nature and the learned

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

11; (b) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (c) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business

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.

11,41,140 TOTAL 4,12,49,060 7. The assessee produced some vouchers regarding the expenses. However, the Assessing Officer accepted the vouchers of bank commission and rejected other expenses. Learned CIT(A) while restricting the addition held as under: “i. Labour Expenses The labour register was produced before the Assessing Officer and no adverse comment was made except

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

disallowing the benefit of section 80P(2)(d) for deduction of interest received from district cooperative bank. The claim should have been 1 | P a g e allowed. The addition made at Rs. 1,84,110/- is illegal and unjustified should be deleted. 2. The assessee in the instant case fulfils all the required conditions for deduction under section

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

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

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 Rs. 2,46,00,672/- out of total receipt of Rs. 2,46,48,97 2/-. 10. The assessee is imparting training as per NSDC norms. For imparting the training, the appellant have to incur the expenditure. The appellant is maintaining books of accounts. It was held that the AO has not pointed out any defect

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

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 of contribution for ESI/PF may be disallowed

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

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 of contribution for ESI/PF may be disallowed

BHARATKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

11 06 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 23/12/2024 of learned Addl. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. Addl. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: - “1. The learned Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. and without complying the CBDT instruction in this regard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of the transportation of Rs. 88,01,434/- done by 8 parties named in the assessment order to the income of the appellant

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

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 was not utilized for business purpose. Thus the order of CIT (A) is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that

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

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 was not utilized for business purpose. Thus the order of CIT (A) is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 69C of the Act. He pointed out that AO in her assessment order dated 30.12.2019 had disallowed Rs.2,12,82,278/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of bogus sales cash during the month of October, 2016 but 7 AY 2017-18 M/s Ambajee jewellers Jabalpur failed to disallow the remaining amount of Rs.1,79,65,402/-. This

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

SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JABALPUR

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

disallowed exemption u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in giving relief only to the extent of constructed area of the house whereas as per section 54F cost of complete house including garden open space and parking space other etc. are exempted. 5. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , , JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION , KATNI

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance of remuneration paid to partner, Shri Sanjay Pathak. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the provisions of section 40(b) of the IT Act as the partner has not worked for whole year. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record