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)

142(1) were issued to the assessee, but none of A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit them were complied with. Therefore, in view of the non-compliance, the ld. AO decided proceed ex parte and complete the assessment of the case in a best judgment manner, by resorting to section 144 of the Income

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee, the details of which are recorded in the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee had incurred interest expenses for earning exempt income. She had shown investment to the tune of Rs. 2,29,71,470/- as on 31.03.2016 and earned

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)

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 was seen

BARNALI SAMANTA,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD2(5), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

142(1) of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The AO dealt on the facts with respect to unsecured loans accepted by the assessee and was not satisfied with the explanations and made addition

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

section 147 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire on 20.09.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 27.09.2017, but neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any compliance made till 19.10.2017. 2 | P a g e Consequently

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI MYD. TILHARI JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1) JABALPUR, 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 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) vide which the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse-appellant by confirming the assessment order dated 17-12-2018 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. 2.1 The assesse is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Societies

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income

GAYATRI DEVI AGRAWAL,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -BALAGHAT , BALAGHAT

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

disallowing travelling Expenses claimed which is unjustified, uncalled for, flawed and infirm. 8. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not giving opportunity of being heard. 9. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to apply principal of natural 0 Justice. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

142(1) dated 06/1/2016, as indeed the assessment order dated 17/2/2016 (for the current year), made out at the same address (PB-1, pgs. 2-3). Sh. Ghai would clarify that the communication to the AO was on 19/03/2016, i.e., while filing the return of his late father for AY 2015-16. The same is, thus, admittedly after the impugned

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

section 119(2)(b) is pending.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information through ITBA software that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.5,89,76,696/-; made contract payments of Rs.1,40,392/-; made commission payments of Rs.3,88,381/- and received interest of Rs.12,695/- but not filed any income

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 26/12/2006 and 24/12/2007 for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively, vide his orders dated 09/03/2016 & 13/03/2016 respectively. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience, even as was by the Tribunal

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.

142(1) along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.89,72.239/- on account of bogus purchases shown in trading account, Rs.84,65,420/- on account of undisclosed receipts, Rs.89.38.780/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and Rs.14,265/- on account of unexplained interest. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/11/2018, the assessee preferred appeal before

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.

142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire are issued. In compliance to the notices the L/H of the assessee has filed information/ written submissions through ITBA System. In the course of assessment proceedings, legal heir of the assessee has submitted the details of purchase and sale of goods in credit and cash for the F.Y 2016-17.The Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

142(1) of the Act for submission of the details. The Ld. AR of the assessee along with the Director of the Company appeared and submitted the information. The AO has verified the return of income and annexure and seized material marked page 78 LPS-17 recovered from premise of Jabalpur Hospital & Research Centre, the assessee has quoted an amount

NARENDRA AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO-WARD 1 (2),, JABALPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 43B. Since, the said challans go to the root of the matter and is the most crucial evidence involved in the case, it is humbly requested before the Hon'ble Bench to accept Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground