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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing." 2. We may take up ITA No. 154/JAB/2016 in the first instance. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the development of mining of minerals such as dolomite, limestone, fluorite

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pathariya Phatak, Damoh Tax, [Pan:Aaacj 7141G] Circle- Sagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.01.2006 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2003-04. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deciding the ground No. 1 and 2 regarding addition of Rs.40,44,451/- in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80 1A, which was unjustified