SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. It is also pertinent to note that that the co-ordinate bench vide its order dated 13.12.2016 in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 and 2008-09 (supra) has decided the very issue of parting of the commission with Mr. Kamal Kumar

M/S RAMBILAS GATTANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 01/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   M/S. Rambilas Gattani, Income Tax Officer, Mohta Plot, Tilak Ward, Vs Ward 1, Pipariya, Dist. Hoshangabad

Section 40A(2)(b) to make the disallowance of interest expenditure paid to relatives. We find no justification in the addition so made. We, therefore, delete the same and allow ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th March, 2018 at Jabalpur. (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S.TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION (PAN AACFT8104E), OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BURHAR, DIST.- SHAHDOL (M.P.)

In the result, issue no.3 raised by the Revenue in ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 25/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Tirupati Construction, Income-Tax, Vs Opp. Railway Station, Burhar, Central Circle Distt. – Shahdol (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aacft 8104 E / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr Assessee By : Shri B.K. Nema, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Jabalpur Dated 14.03.2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit(A)2/Jbp/Acit/Cir/Katni/024/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 17.03.2015 Framed By The Acit, Circle-Katni.

Section 44AB of the Act and all the impugned expenses and purchases have been examined by the ld. CIT(A) and no mistake has been pointed out by the First Appellate Authority. Learned Departmental Representative has also been unable to prove any distinguishing fact to show that in the past such disallowances have been made which have been confirmed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142; or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or (d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits, he may direct that such person shall

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

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

disallowance, since deleted in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‗CIT(A)‘, for short) vide his order dated 08/07/2020 in respect of the assessee‘s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘ hereinafter), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds

JILA SAHAKARI BANK MARYDIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(2),

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 231/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sadan, Wright Town, Vs Ward 1(2), Jabalpur (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aaajj 0118 J / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 9Th June 2016 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/Ward/1(3)/Jbp/079/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 144/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 27.03.2015 Framed By The Ito, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur.

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.8 lakhs. We, therefore, dismiss ground no.4 as not pressed. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 relate to claim of assessee towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. Both the lower authorities have denied this benefit. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Central Co-operative Bank

SHRI D.P.AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RENGE -1, JABALPUR

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 27/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri D. P. Agrawal, Additional Commissioner Of 1392, Main Road, Gorakhpur, Vs Income-Tax, Jabalpur (Mp) Range-1, Pan : Acxpa 0688 H Jabalpur / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur Dated 24Th April, 2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/(A)-1/Ad.Cit-R-1/Jbp/319/2009-10, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 21.12.2009 Framed By The Acit, Range-1, Jabalpur.

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- for coal consumption and disallowance of Rs.20,000/- each for telephone and conveyance expenses. Income assessed at Rs.15,14,733/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

2. That the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- out of various heads of expenses. The addition should be quashed in toto. 3. That there is no justification for confirming disallowance of 10% out of vehicle expenses and depreciation. The disallowance of expenses is unwarranted and without any basis. The same may pleased

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAGAR vs. SHRI BIRMANAND SUNDRANI, SAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 61/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2014-15   Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Birmanand Sundarani, Income-Tax, Vs Sindhi Colony, Bina, Sagar (Mp) Circle Sagar Pan : Anjps 0520 P / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Jabalpur Dated 4Th September, 2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowance to 30% of salary ignoring the fact that the allowability of expenses in previous assessment year would not obviate the need to establish the expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the business. ACIT Vs. Shri Birmanand Sundrani AY : 2014-15 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving cognizance to the fact that the amount of Rs.49

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)

7. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further notice issued under section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly

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)

7. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further notice issued under section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Sh. Ghai would before us further add that s. 194C(7) is even otherwise independent of s. 194C(6). 5.3 The same, however, did not find acceptance by the ld. Pr. CIT; the operative part of the impugned order reading as under: „5. The assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194C(7

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

7,02,246/- BY THE Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC Centre, Bangalore. It is seen from the intimation that deduction of Rs.5,40,082/- claimed by the assessee has been reduced to Rs.2,51,182/-, Similarly deduction of Rs.21,75,000/-claimed under section 11(2) has also not allowed, resulting in increased total income of Rs.26

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.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee firm had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.5,52,85,400/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment

SHRI KISHORE KUMAR AGRAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 53/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2005-06   Shri Kishore Kumar Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Agrawal Stores, Vs

2,60,500/- introduced as capital by the appellant in his business concern M/s. Agrawal Traders out of the funds available with him and explained by the appellant.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that case of the assessee was re- opened and the assessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred