NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

11, CPC, Income Tax Department, 128,Gandhi Ward, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560500 Parasia, Chhindwara, Chhindwara(M.P.)-480441 [PAN: AUMPM9207F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. JancyBiju , Advocate Respondent by Sh.S.K.Halder, DR Date of hearing 26/10/2021 Date of pronouncement 18/11/2021 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., for two consecutive years, being assessment years

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

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

SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 11,15,549/- on wrong assumption of the facts of the case. The addition of Rs 11,15,549/- should be quashed in toto. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the revised grounds of appeal

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

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.

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

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 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

disallowance of depreciation was, under the circumstances, not justified, and directed its deletion. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The respective cases 4.1 The Revenue’s case is that the sole premise of the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) is the non-establishment of the nexus between the funds received by the Bank from GoI and the purchase

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

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

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

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

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK SINGH BANAFER, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

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

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 4.2 We may begin by delineating the case of either side before us. The Revenue

POORAN LAL VISHWAKARMA,KATNI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

1), for clauses (c) to (e), the following clauses shall be substituted with effect from †he Ist day of June, 2015, namely:- “(c) †he fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance With the provisions of sect6ion 234E: (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount