M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowance following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax-1 in Civil Appeal no. 2833 OF 2016. Relevant part of the order of Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5. Decision Ground No.1 to 4 1. Addition of Rs.2,37,773/- u/s 36(1

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

36(1)(iii) for AY 2001-02, which was found as 9 liable to be disallowed u/s. 14A, inserted only by Finance Act, 2001. The borrowed capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income for the relevant year

M/S R S CARGO,,SATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 1 | P a g e R.S. Cargo v. Dy. CIT 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench, following it’s decision in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021). Sh. Mehrotra

M/S SRBH EBGUNEERING & EQUIPMENT PVT LTD DELHA MOD, SARLA NAGAR , MAIHAR DISTT SATNA(M.P),SATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DCIT CIR KATNI, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench, following it’s decision in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021). Sh. Mehrotra, the ld. Sr. DR, would, on asking, concede to this being

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021) and, following it, in Ultra Clean & Care Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. DIT (in ITA No. 44/Jab/2021

MUKESH KALWAY,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed by the Revenue invoking s. 36(1)(va) per an Intimation u/s. 143(1), is covered by a series of decisions by this Tribunal, including by the Jabalpur Bench in Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021, dated 18/11/2021) and, following it, in Ultra Clean & Care Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. DIT (in ITA No. 44/Jab/2021

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, WARD 2 SATNA.CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE,BANGALORE, KARNAATAKA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 A R Transport, Assistant Director Of Income Vs. Tax, Central Processing Satna, (M.P.) Centre, Bangalore [Pan : Aayfa 6634L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Submissions Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/04/2022

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) vide order dated 06/5/2020. 2. None appeared for the assessee-appellant when the appeal was called out for hearing. There is, however, on record a written note by its’ counsel, Sh. Rahul Bardia, stating that the sole issue arising in appeal is the disallowance of employee’s contribution

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same

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

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

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

v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law, and the same deserves to be set aside. 3. The cross objection has not been pressed and hence dismissed as infructuous. Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii): 4. The AO found that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

disallowance of depreciation was, under the circumstances, not justified, and directed its deletion. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The respective cases 4.1 The Revenue’s case is that the sole premise of the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) is the non-establishment of the nexus between the funds received by the Bank from GoI and the purchase

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 26/12/2006 and 24/12/2007 for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively, vide his orders dated 09/03/2016 & 13/03/2016 respectively. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience, even as was by the Tribunal

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit