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.

251/-. Since there is no difference in the royalty paid as per books of accounts and royalty payment appearing in form no 26AS, hence the addition of Rs. 1 lakh made by the AO is deleted. In result, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 6. The learned D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition and relied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

disallowance of depreciation was, under the circumstances, not justified, and directed its deletion. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The respective cases 4.1 The Revenue’s case is that the sole premise of the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) is the non-establishment of the nexus between the funds received by the Bank from GoI and the purchase

SHRI PRINCE RAI,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

section 132 of the Act, still the material obtained thereby is liable to be used subject to law before the Income- tax authorities against the person from whose custody it is seized and, therefore, no writ of prohibition in restraint for such use can be granted. This stands reiterated by it in Dr. Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Director of Enforcement