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

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

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

5) of section 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

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

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

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.

5. On the contrary learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had produced all the documents in support of the expenditure, therefore, the order of learned CIT(A) rightly restricted the additions, which require no interference. 6. We have heard both the parties and have perused the materials available on record. The learned Assessing Officer rejected some

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

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.

5. Whereas the Pr.CIT observed that there is no compliance to the notices issued and dealt on the material on record and observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the order U/sec143(3) of the Act passed on 16-12- 2019 and directed the Assessing Officer

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

11. In view of the forgoing discussion, the assessment is hereby made by disallowing the amount of Rs.1,84,110/- for non- 4 | P a g e fulfilment of requisite conditions laid down to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The sum payable/refund of any amount due on the basis of the assessment

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)

5) v. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. PAN:AABAB4581D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent by: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 23 05 2025 Date of pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed

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.

5 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which states that "the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income

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.

5 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which states that "the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income

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.

5 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which states that "the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice under Section 263 was before the A.O. and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot be assumed by him. 6. On the facts