J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowance of the interest. The Tribunal held that if there could be two views about the claims of the assessee, the explanation offered by it cannot be said to be false. The penalty was accordingly deleted by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was maintained by the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue, before

PAWAN YADAV, CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.07.2024 by which the appeal against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Chhindwara dated 12.09.2016 have been dismissed as withdrawn. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the Ld. A.O. has in disallowing the erred cash deposits of Rs. 46,42,500.00 disregarding the actual facts, cash book

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. and without complying the CBDT instruction in this regard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of the transportation of Rs. 88,01,434/- done by 8 parties named in the assessment order to the income of the appellant

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. 3,69,039/- only had been added inadvertently instead

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

disallowed Rs.30,77,800.00 out of cash deposits in bank during the demonetization period on the pretext and notion and disregarding cash book and audited accounts submitted that opening cash on date of demonetization (08.11.2016) is Rs.1,12,700/- and remaining are SBN received during demonetization from debtors of earlier sales which is contradictory and against facts as the compliance