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

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

disallowed, i.e., Rs. 238.29 lacs. Where and what, one may ask, is the ambiguity, either on facts or in law? The Apex Court in CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC), a decision by its' larger bench, reversed the decision by the 12 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court wherein it was held that penalty

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

disallowance of the interest. The Tribunal held that if there could be two views about the claims of the assessee, the explanation offered by it cannot be said to be false. The penalty was accordingly deleted by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was maintained by the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue, before

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

23,49,624/-, local conveyance expenses of Rs. 36,71,838/-, printing & stationary expenses of Rs. 77,81743/-, travelling expenses of Rs. 50,80,623/- and business promotion expenses of Rs. 2,82,229/-. The entire expense were to the tune of Rs. 2,05,82,834/-. Therefore, the AO on ad-hoc basis disallowed

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)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition on account of interest of Rs. 18,77,776 without properly appreciating the facts and even otherwise appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the act. ADDITIONAL GROUND

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)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition on account of interest of Rs. 18,77,776 without properly appreciating the facts and even otherwise appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the act. ADDITIONAL GROUND

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.

23, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had a sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, in the interests of justice, condone the delay of 17 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 3. Briefly stated facts, as culled

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

23,319/- was made whereas in AY 2017-18, identical addition of Rs.9,57,47,779/- was made. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in both the AYs. By way of the impugned order(s), Ld.CIT(A) following the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years, has deleted the addition

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

23,319/- was made whereas in AY 2017-18, identical addition of Rs.9,57,47,779/- was made. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in both the AYs. By way of the impugned order(s), Ld.CIT(A) following the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years, has deleted the addition

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 40A(3) is reduced from 1,21,807/- to Rs. 20195/-. In result, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 1,01,612/-. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. Heard the parties and perused the materials. The learned CIT(A) being a fact finding authority found that all the payments made to the parties except the payment

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.

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

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.

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

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.

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

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

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 4.2 We may begin by delineating the case of either side before us. The Revenue

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

GLOBAL FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH,JABLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1) dated 5.02.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. JCIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that demand raised in intimation u/s 143(1) on account of disallowance of expenditure made towards attainment of objects of society being registered u/s 12A has already been allowed

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”

section 11 not given and can not be disallowed u/s 143(1) being disputable by the CPC as not being prima facie disallowable and treating the same as gross income for levying the tax Rs. 349690/-.Relied on Serum Institute case (2018) TTJ 0820 (Rune Trib) and Shri Guru Singh Sabha (2018) 068 ITR (Trib) 0394 Delhi ITAT. 5) That

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.

23,678/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Grounds of Cross Objection No.01/JAB/2020 “1. Considering the fact that in spite of repeated request to ld AO the assessee has not been provided with reason recorded for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148, the Hon'ble CIT(A) should have held that impugned assessment order