KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case inadequate enquiry. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the matter to the file

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Whereas the Pr.CIT observed that there is no compliance to the notices issued and dealt on the material on record and observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the order U/sec143(3) of the Act passed

RAJESH JAIN,TIKAMGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Jain, The Pcit, Gwalior, Prop. M/S Gyan Tube Wells, Aayakar Bhavan City Centre Mau Chungi Road, Vs. Gwalior, M.P.472001. Tikamgarh-472001. Pan No. Aoqoj 4456 D Appellant Respondent

section 263 does not authorize him to start fishing and roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already concluded. concluded.  That the Order passed by Assessing Officer in accordance That the Order passed by Assessing Officer in accordance That the Order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. SHAKTI MAHILA SANGH BAHU-UDDESHIYA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, MAJHOLI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu-Uddeshiya 1(1), Jabalpur, M.P. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Majholi Pan:Aafas3026A (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 and 144B of the Act on 28.03.2023 determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.1,72,53,990/-. The amount 2 A.Y.- 2017-18 Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu- uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit of Rs. 1,72,53,990/- was treated as commission income received against services provided as business correspondent and assessed under income from other sources

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowance as directed by Ld. PCIT. On further appeal, the assessee brought to the knowledge of Ld.CIT(A) that the Tribunal has quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, consequent order of the AO does not survive. However, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order by observing as under:- 5. “During the appellate proceedings the appellant

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 263 are not satisfied. The order made is without jurisdiction should be quashed. 2. That, The learned PCIT has failed to record specific finding based on case specific facts that the order made u/s 143(3) by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order should be annulled. I.T.A. No.37/Jab/2022 Assessment Year

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

disallowed by Assessing Officer & 7 | P a g e confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee

LATE SHRI TIRATH RAJ SINGH,THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH, VIDEH NIKUNJ, NEAR JAWAHAR PARK, SIDHI(M.P),SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, , REWA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Tirath Raj Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Through Legal Heir Shri Rewa (Mp) Gyanendra Singh, Videh Nikunj, Jawahar Park, Sidhi (Mp) Pan : Ajkps7948G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri H.S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

Section 40A(3) of the Act. In the consequential assessment order, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs.3,46,050/- on account of I.T.A. No.52/Jab/2023 2 payments made against purchase of cement on the ground that the assessee had made all the payments below Rs.20,000/- in cash with an aim to avoid the liability of deducting

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67. This view is fortified by the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Ms. Brinda Kumar Krishna vs. ITO in IT A No. 454/Bang/2021 by order dated 17/11/2021. 7. It’s a tribe law that DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income