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

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 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

2 of his order), after hearing the assessee (through his counsel, Sh. S.K. Lalwani, CA) from time to time, that he has not maintained books of account as he had returned the income on presumptive tax basis u/s. 44AF. The same being a non-obstante provision, the business income (of the food-grain trading business) was accepted

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

2 | P a g e Asst. CIT v. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank that the amount was given by the GoI for recapitalization, Further, that the same had been utilized for purchasing computers was also not established. The disallowance of depreciation was, under the circumstances, not justified, and directed its deletion. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The respective