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

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.

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid at Rs.11,15,549/- and assessed total income of the assessee at Sanjay Kale Vs ITO AY : 2008-09 2 Rs.19,31,210/-. Appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) brought part relief. Now the assessee is in appeal

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

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

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 Smt. Jancy Biju , Advocate Respondent by Sh. S.K.Halder, Sr. 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

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

2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142; or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or (d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits, he may direct that such person shall

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 prima facie disallowable and treating the same as gross income for levying the tax Rs. 349690/-.Relied on Serum Institute case (2018) TTJ 0820 (Rune Trib) and Shri Guru Singh Sabha (2018) 068 ITR (Trib) 0394 Delhi ITAT. 5) That

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.5,52,85,400/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment

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

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.

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 Tax 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

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

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch

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

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

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

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

2,72,850/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (iii) In result, these grounds of appeal are decided against the assessee.” 4 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that paper publication of the obituary also contained name of the company and it was not a mere intimation

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

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit

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