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.

35. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying on the order of ITAT, Jabalpur Bench in the case of Ganesh Pratap Singh. Considering the fact that the disallowance has been made on ad hoc basis, which is 5% of labour charges and mines expenses to cover possible leakage, we find no error or infirmity in the 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

2. able to be paid; and 3. debts owned by a business The Chambers Dictionary (New Edition) defines the word payabl e' as "that may or should be paid; due or profitable" Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines the term 'payable' as under :- "Capable of being paid; suitable to be paid; admitting or demanding payment justly due; legally enforceable

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,NARSINGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 43B of the Act clearly provides that any expense which is claimed and not paid before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is not to be allowed as expense. Therefore it is held that the AO correctly made addition of Rs.53,328/- on account of disallowance

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ,NARSINGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 43B of the Act clearly provides that any expense which is claimed and not paid before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is not to be allowed as expense. Therefore it is held that the AO correctly made addition of Rs.53,328/- on account of disallowance

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)

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. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed an appeal with the ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal which was subsequently migrated

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

35,10,432/- from his father' concern Datt\nAssociates on which no interest has been paid. As the assessee given the\namount out his capital and fathers fund the disallowance of interest\nmade by AO may kindly be deleted. Against the order assessee made an\nappeal before the CIT ( A ) but the notice of hearing were not received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance was restricted by the learned CIT(A) @10% out of the expenditure pertaining to mine development and sub-contract. The said approach of CIT(A) is found to be reasonable which requires no interference at the hands of this Tribunal as the Department has not pointed out any defect in the books of account. Accordingly, ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance is the letter dated 29/4/2017 by the assessee to Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited (MPPMCL)(PB pg. 72) seeking sanction for approval for commissioning and trial run the plant and machinery installed for power generation (at 12.8 MW). The same, as per the Revenue, by itself proves that no approval had been allowed till then, nor is there

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.

2, to section 263 of the Act. The A.O. has simply relied and accepted the ITR along with audit report filed by the assessee on the portal” 4. The Pr.CIT has issued e-notice U/sec 263 of the Act but there was no compliance and observed at Para 4 & 5 of the order as under: 4. Therefore, proceedings under section

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

35 and no physical notice was issued to appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without giving any opportunity of hearing as no notice was ever been served to appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

section 144 and further erred in mentioning that assessee has produced partial purchase bills only during assessment proceeding 12. The revision order dated 19/01/2022 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 13. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

disallowances and surrender of income and the additions are made without any evidences and no adequate opportunity of hearing was provided. The Ld. AR emphasized on the each ground of appeal of the revenue and made exhaustive submissions on the disputed issues and the Ld.AR supported the order of the CIT(A) to the ITA No. 19/JAB/2019 & CO. 04/JAB/2019

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing ex-parte order only on the ground of non filing of form 35 assessment order, grounds of appeal etc without appreciating that appellant have duly filed these details before the CIT(A), Jabalpur and it is the duty of the 0/0 CIT Appeal to upload

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI MYD. TILHARI JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) vide which the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse-appellant by confirming the assessment order dated 17-12-2018 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. 2.1 The assesse is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Societies

NARENDRA AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ITO-WARD 1 (2),, JABALPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 43B. Since, the said challans go to the root of the matter and is the most crucial evidence involved in the case, it is humbly requested before the Hon'ble Bench to accept Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground

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