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

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.

8. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue is regarding deletion of addition of Rs.15,38,092/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation of assets. 9. The learned Assessing Officer on perusal of Audit Report submitted by the assessee, found that the assessee had claimed the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,81,13,439/- in Schedule

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

8. In the light of the above, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee's own case for the Asst. Year 2015-16, wherein the disallowances were being made under section 143(1) of the Act, and similar disallowance is also made for the present year viz. Asst. Year 2016-17, we hold that debatable issue should

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

8 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. has been provided in section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 as well as in Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules which read as under:- 68. Payment of service tax (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such

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

8,50,261/- for disallowance of hamali expenses. The addition should be deleted. AY: 2005-06 1. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,524/- on account of disallowance of loss in cotton sold to sister concern. The addition should be deleted. 2. The confirmation of addition

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

13,449/- disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna Construction Company expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.20,38,532/- from Executive Engineer, Bansagar, Keoti Canal Division, Rewa, but as per 26AS, the assessee

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

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)

13 Formulation of the issues 4.1 As would be apparent from the foregoing, the issues arising for adjudication are as under: [ a). whether any addition under section 69A or, as the case may be, s. 69B, i.e., toward excess stock of finished goods of iron ore (manganese ore) is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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)

13 Formulation of the issues 4.1 As would be apparent from the foregoing, the issues arising for adjudication are as under: [ a). whether any addition under section 69A or, as the case may be, s. 69B, i.e., toward excess stock of finished goods of iron ore (manganese ore) is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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)

13 Formulation of the issues 4.1 As would be apparent from the foregoing, the issues arising for adjudication are as under: [ a). whether any addition under section 69A or, as the case may be, s. 69B, i.e., toward excess stock of finished goods of iron ore (manganese ore) is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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)

13 Formulation of the issues 4.1 As would be apparent from the foregoing, the issues arising for adjudication are as under: [ a). whether any addition under section 69A or, as the case may be, s. 69B, i.e., toward excess stock of finished goods of iron ore (manganese ore) is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowed by Assessing Officer & 7 | P a g e confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

disallowing interest Rs.42,16,333/- on loans and advances given by the assessee.” 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of written submissions for the sake of clarity the written submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: - “The Appellant respectfully submits the present appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law being ex-parte, thus violating the "principle of natural justice", by not giving proper opportunity to the assessee; who was bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause

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

8. 27.11.2019 15.11.2019 80557 15104.44 65452.56 80557 9. 14.04.2020 15.12.2019 103713 19446.19 84266.81 103713 10. 14.04.2020 15.01.2020 91945 17239.69 74705.31 91945 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

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

8. 27.11.2019 15.11.2019 80557 15104.44 65452.56 80557 9. 14.04.2020 15.12.2019 103713 19446.19 84266.81 103713 10. 14.04.2020 15.01.2020 91945 17239.69 74705.31 91945 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

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

8 (B.1) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.07.2025. In the course of appellate proceeding in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), a paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side: - S. PARTICULARS No. 1 Copy of Acknowledgement of filing of Written Submission 2 Copy

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

disallowed 10% of these expenses and made an addition of Rs. 13,470/-. 5. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) in his order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 18.11.2022, recorded the fact that the assessee had not submitted any supporting documents such

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

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

13,76,224, while the Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed, in addition thereto, rs. 7,49,40,575, being the interest on bank deposits, duly credited to it‘s Profit & Loss Account (PB pgs. 15-16). How could that be, i.e., the disallowance exceeding the deduction claimed which, being qua income, 7 | P a g e ITO v. MP Rastriya

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 43B would apply. Therefore, it was prayed that no disallowance with regard to the same was justified other than the sum of Rs.19,613/- on account of short payment of rural infrastructure tax and VAT. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that no evidence had been submitted before him with regard to this and therefore, he directed the assessee