JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance may be confirmed. 5. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that in the instant case, the assessee had inadvertently filed Form 10-IB before the due date of filing of the return, which is the prescribed form for availing the concessional rate of tax for manufacturing companies under section

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

139] in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount

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

disallowed the following payments u/s. 43B a) Service Tax Collected Rs.22,65,73,334/- b) Swatch Bharat Cess Rs. 1,06,68,102/- c) Kisan Kalyan Cess Rs. 42,52,993/- d) Tax deducted at source Rs.1,88,16,240/- 9. The appellant has also stated that opening balance in TDS payable account

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,NARSINGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

139(1) of the Act thereby violating the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.53,328/- on account of disallowance

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ,NARSINGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

139(1) of the Act thereby violating the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.53,328/- on account of disallowance

GOUR ROAD TAR COAT PRIVATE LIMITED, ,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

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

disallowing the amount of employee contribution towards EFP and ESI. Assessee has deducted amount of employee contribution of EPF and ESI from salary on monthly basis and paid the amount after the due date as fixed by the concerning departments. Assessee has filed his return under section 139

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

Section 139(1) of the Act was fatal to the claim for FTC. 16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rue 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

139(1), disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021) and, following it, in Ultra Clean & Care Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

139(1), disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021) and, following it, in Ultra Clean & Care Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst

M/S SRBH EBGUNEERING & EQUIPMENT PVT LTD DELHA MOD, SARLA NAGAR , MAIHAR DISTT SATNA(M.P),SATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DCIT CIR KATNI, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

139(1), disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench, following it’s decision in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021). Sh. Mehrotra, the ld. Sr. DR, would, on asking, concede

M/S R S CARGO,,SATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

139(1), disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 1 | P a g e R.S. Cargo v. Dy. CIT 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench, following it’s decision in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021

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”

139 as per CBDT circular 02/2020 dt 3.1.2020 w.e.f due date being 31 March of every asstt. year, I e. For the A.Y. 2018-19- 31.03.2019 and thus 10B form filed On 26.02.2020, the delay is within 365 days should have been condoned relying on the CBDT circular No. 6/2020 dt 19.02.2020 4) That the Comm. (appeals) erred

M/S. R M SALES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

disallowing the claim made by the appellant aggregating to Rs 2,87,332/comprising of employee’s contribution of PF Rs 2,68,582/- and Gratuity of Rs 18,750/- by applying section 43B of LT Act, 1961. While ignoring the fact that the same have been suo-moto added back by the appellant in the computation of Total Income

PHOENIX POULTRY,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

139(1) of the Act for furnishing of return of income. 3.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

139(1) of the Act. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the fact that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed

M/S.SAGAR TOBACCO & INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) vide order dated 17/11/2009 for assessment year (AY) 2007-08. 2. The appeal raises, per its sole ground, a single issue, i.e., the disallowance for Rs. 1,43,903 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in view of the non-deduction of tax at source

PRIMO PICK PACK PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC , BANGALORE OFFICER ISACIT, CIRCLE2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad), besides by the Delhi and Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal. The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant/s, wherein, noticing, inter alia

GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 2(1)CPC TAX,CPC, , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad), besides by the Delhi and Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal. The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant/s, wherein, noticing, inter alia