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)

139(1) of the Act. ii. The assessee company had opted for taxation under section 115BAA of the Act in Item (E) ‘filing status’ in PART-A-GEN of the form of return of income ITR-6 and 7 A.Y. 2023-24 Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes P. Ltd. iii. Form 10-IC is filled electronically on or before 31.01.2024 or three

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

disallowed this claim and added these amounts to the income of the assessee in the respective assessment years. In the assessment year 2014-15, as the assessee filed its return beyond the due date laid down under section 139(1

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

disallowed this claim and added these amounts to the income of the assessee in the respective assessment years. In the assessment year 2014-15, as the assessee filed its return beyond the due date laid down under section 139(1

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

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 as on 01.04.2016 is at Rs. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. AO has made addition of 19,49,442 by 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

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, WARD 2 SATNA.CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE,BANGALORE, KARNAATAKA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 A R Transport, Assistant Director Of Income Vs. Tax, Central Processing Satna, (M.P.) Centre, Bangalore [Pan : Aayfa 6634L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Submissions Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/04/2022

disallowed in computing his total income under the Act. [3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Our first observation in the matter is that the issue at hand is, in view of the several decisions to the contrary, debatable, and therefore could not have been made under section 143(1), even as clarified

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

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

1) is clearly toward obtaining information deemed relevant by the assessing authority from the assessee. The second function of the said notice is to cause furnishing of a return of income where the same has not been furnished u/s. 139, and which is clearly not the case. In sum, the Ground is without merit and, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Ground

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”

1. That the commissioner Appeals faceless erred in not condoning the delay in filling 10B audit report up loaded belatedly by C.A. on 26.02.2020, whereas it was signed by C.A. on 20.06.2018 and the assesse dully added C. A for up loading Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust. Jabalpur . on 03.08.2018, ITR was filed on 06.08.2018, thus the audit