SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer made various addition totaling to Rs.16,64,162/- which majorly included disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid at Rs.11,15,549/- and assessed total income of the assessee at Sanjay Kale

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

disallowed following sum placing reliance on provisions of section 43B of the Act; 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the rules for payment of Service Taxed. The rules for payment of service tax 8 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. has been provided in section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 as well as in Rule

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 194J on the payment of Rs. 29,500/- made to 3 different parties. Hence, the assessee gets the relief of Rs.29,500/-. (ii) As regard the payment of Rs. 50,000/- made to Shri V Ravindra Prasad Advocate, the assessee submitted that V. Ravendra Prasad is a regular assessee of income and has included the payment received from

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of Rs. 1,82,009/- being deduction from rental income under section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation

GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 2(1)CPC TAX,CPC, , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

section 43B(b), i.e., to the exclusion of s. 36(1)(va), are held as retrospective. Legislative intent being the cornerstone and the sole determinant of any interpretative exercise, both the language of the relevant provisions, as well as of the recently inserted Explanations thereto, introduced with a view to, as stated therein, remove any doubt in the matter

PRIMO PICK PACK PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC , BANGALORE OFFICER ISACIT, CIRCLE2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

section 43B(b), i.e., to the exclusion of s. 36(1)(va), are held as retrospective. Legislative intent being the cornerstone and the sole determinant of any interpretative exercise, both the language of the relevant provisions, as well as of the recently inserted Explanations thereto, introduced with a view to, as stated therein, remove any doubt in the matter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK PODDAR COLONY, SAGAR

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16

section 36(1)(v) of the Act. The ld. Representative also submitted that right from 2013, this Tribunal allowed a similar payment to the gratuity fund and CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal deleted the addition made by ITA No. 137/JAB/18 & C.O. 04/JAB/2020 Madhyanchal Gramin Bank 3 Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

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

sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Given the clear law, the issue arising to our mind is principally one of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any settlement has been, as claimed, arrived at between the parties, much less during the current year, i.e., on the first day of the accounting year, on which the debit notes were entered

SHRI NAMIYUN PARSWANATH JAIN, SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

1. That the commissioner Appeals faceless erred in not condoning the delay in filling 10B audit report up loaded belatedly by C.A. on 26.02.2020, whereas it was signed by C.A. on 20.06.2018 and the assesse dully added C. A for up loading Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust. Jabalpur . on 03.08.2018, ITR was filed on 06.08.2018, thus the audit

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

GAYATRI DEVI AGRAWAL,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -BALAGHAT , BALAGHAT

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

section 68 of Rs.5 lakhs. Similarly the AO on verification of the expenditure found that the assessee has not maintained proper bills and vouchers and could not explain the nature of expenses incurred for the purpose of business and therefore the AO has estimated the adhoc disallowance of expense i.e. carriage inward of Rs.2,31,300/-, carriage outward

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)

1,72,53,990/- was treated as commission income received against services provided as business correspondent and assessed under income from other sources of the Act. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

disallowed expenditure claimed. Tribunal held that though purchases were from bogus parties, nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus, so not the entire amount, but profit margin embedded in such amount only would be subjected to tax. The High Court held, whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand