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

disallowing the claim made by the appellant on account of employee's A.R. Transport vs ITO contribution of PF at Rs 2,37,773/- as the same was paid on or before the due date of filling of the Income Tax Return and is to be allowed as per the proviso of section

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.

37. The ground No.1 is regarding confirmation of disallowance of Rs.20,195/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 38. The learned Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,21,807/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition wherever the payments were made in cash less

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

disallowances. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 3rd June, 2022 at Ahmedabad. In lieu of the explanation and case laws referred it is requested that the intimation order under section 143(1) under relevance may kindly be quashed and in alternative the expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of 3 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of 3 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment

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

sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Given the clear law, the issue arising to our mind is principally one of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any settlement has been, as claimed, arrived at between the parties, much less during the current year, i.e., on the first day of the accounting year, on which the debit notes were entered

M/S GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/09/2017 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue concerns the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1,59,100, being ten percent of the claim in respect of travel expenditure (i.e., Rs.15.91 lacs

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 vide Intimation dated 28/03/2019. The Arguments 2. Sh. Bardia, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, would, at the outset, submit that the issue arising in the instant appeal, i.e., the maintainability in law of the adjustment to the returned income

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

37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital work in\nprogress as capital receipts. During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK PODDAR COLONY, SAGAR

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16

2. Shri U.B. Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue argued that the case virtually sitting at Mumbai and submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is the addition of Rs. 17,41,82,013/- deleted by the CIT(A) towards the payment to an unapproved gratuity fund. According to the ld. DR, the payment made to approved

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the relevant years. The Arguments 2. Sh. Purohit, the ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, would, at the outset, submit that the issue arising in the instant appeals, i.e., the maintainability in law of the adjustment to the returned income in respect of the employee’s contributions

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the relevant years. The Arguments 2. Sh. Purohit, the ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, would, at the outset, submit that the issue arising in the instant appeals, i.e., the maintainability in law of the adjustment to the returned income in respect of the employee’s contributions

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

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 dated 14/5/2019. The Arguments 2. Sh. Bardia, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, would, at the outset, submit that the issue arising in the instant appeal, i.e., the maintainability in law of the adjustment to the returned income in respect of employee

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) vide order dated 06/5/2020. 2. None appeared for the assessee-appellant when the appeal was called out for hearing. There is, however, on record a written note by its’ counsel, Sh. Rahul Bardia, stating that the sole issue arising in appeal is the disallowance of employee’s contribution