ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR vs. SHRI RISHAV KUMAR JAIN, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.2,00,48,809 without rejecting the books of account and without invoking section 145(3). He disallowed

RAMJIDAS BUDHRAJA CHARITABLE TRUST (SGM),CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

3. In this case the assessee being purely educational institution its income was exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. That due to change in law the assessee Trust was required to obtain registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. For this purpose the assessee submitted an application for registration under Section 12AA before

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

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.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16/12/2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the said order is SET ASIDE FOR DE- NOVO CONSIDERATION, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order. The A.O. is further directed to pass a suitable order

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

3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (c) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long -term finance for industrial projects and eligible for deduction

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed but the entire investment of Rs. 28,89,600/-. Therefore, he added back the balance of Rs. 7,16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain of Rs. 3

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)

3. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the commission income of Rs.1,72,53,988/- received by the assessee from IDBI was the business income of the assessee and hence it was eligible for deduction under section

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is not justified In confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.3,79,043/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest of justice

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‘Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

disallowance, since deleted in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‗CIT(A)‘, for short) vide his order dated 08/07/2020 in respect of the assessee‘s assessment under section 143(3

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

3. That, there was sufficient reasons due to which the assessee could not appear before the first appellant authority before passing the order dated 11.09.2024. 4 That, the Ld. First appellate authority is totally unjustified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8153072/- on account of additions made under various heads. Page 2 of 8 5 Under the facts and circumstances

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 194C. Therefore, he made 30% amounting to Rs. 48,13,449/- disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

3 of 5 profit & loss account (b) The assessee firm made investment of Rs.25,00,000/- which would fetch exempt income and no disallowance as per Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”, for short) was made by the assessee and (c) It was noticed that total investment into the shares of M/s. Khanna Polyware

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 115BAA of the Act in the ITR Form filed for the year under consideration and not filing Form No. 10-IC is merely a technical lapse and benefit of taxation u/s. 115BAA of the Act cannot be 1 A.Y. 2023-24 Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes P. Ltd. denied merely because of procedural error when other conditions are fulfilled

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)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law assuming jurisdiction under section 263 in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the 1 A.Y.- 2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Revenue, being

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed statistical purposes

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

section 14A. He, therefore, computed the value of the disallowance in Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 35,68,753/- but thereafter noted that the disallowance was being restricted to Rs.27,82,198/-, as this was the amount spent by the assessee. Accordingly, he made disallowance to this extent and initiated the penalty proceedings. 3

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

3) on a total income of Rs.3,37,43,820/-. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in receipt of an\ninterest on FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,14,93,816/-, but had not offered the same as\nincome from other sources. Rather it had adjusted the same in its capital work

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)

section 80P is allowable to appellant which was denied by the AO on the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit ground that appellant have not supplied the documents whereas it was duly filed during the course of hearing. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance

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)

section 80P is allowable to appellant which was denied by the AO on the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit ground that appellant have not supplied the documents whereas it was duly filed during the course of hearing. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance