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

section its being disallowed. 9 Considering the fact that assessee paid Rs. 2,40,000/as consultancy fee and Rs. 4,00,000/- as salary to his daughter — Sumedha Agrawal who is well qualified in MBA and giving her valuable service to the assessee for his business. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount

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:

16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 9,03,280/- being employees contribution towards PF and ESI not paid within the due date of respective Act and the total income was determined at Rs,53,42,53,290/- U/sec 143(1) of the Act dated

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 following sum placing reliance on provisions of section 43B of the Act; 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also

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)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

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)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

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)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

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)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

section and legal pronouncements in his context Page 3 of 7 cannot be added ack. Here the Ld. A.O. has 1ot rejected the books oi account u/s 145(3) of the Ac: and has not made the addition for the source oi credit entry (from which sources the cash has been received, although proved to the A.O.) which

VIJAY RATHI,ITARSI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-ITARSI, ITARSI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Vijay Rathi L/H Manisha V. Dcit, Circle Rathi 109, Aaykar Bhawan, C/O Rathi Dal Mill, Surajganj, Hoshangabad Road, Main Road, Itarsi-461111. Bhopal-462011. Pan:Agmpr6103K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

16,301 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining regular books of accounts and accounts are being audited and appellant has filed all the details related to the grain business which is also evident from order itself. Page 2 of 4 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO in rejecting

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given to non-members, profits attributable to such loans obviously cannot be deducted.” 16 | P a g e 7.1. Therefore, ratio of the decision relied

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is totally unjustified in confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.14,16,175/- from the short term capital loss on the ground

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed but the entire investment of Rs. 28,89,600/-. Therefore, he added back the balance of Rs. 7,16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)(NFAC) erred on. facts and in law in confirming the assessment made under sec. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 made for A.Y. 2017-18 refusing to condone

SMT. ASHA YADAV,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

section 194 C of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. 4. That, the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is served to the assessee on 09.04.2018, hence the order is clearly barred by limitation. 5. That, while passing the order u/s 263 no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee

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

RAJSILA STONE CRUSHER,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 2 , REWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajsila Stone Crusher V. Income Tax Officer Prop Shri Pushpraj Singh, 15 Ward-2 Shastri Nagar, Gopadbanas, Income Tax Office, Kothi Distt-Sidhi-486661. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aalfr4762R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

16 09 2025 Date of pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Delhi dated 16.05.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

disallowed expenditure claimed. Tribunal held that though purchases were from bogus parties, nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus, so not the entire amount, but profit margin embedded in such amount only would be subjected to tax. The High Court held, whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being heard on merits