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.

37. The ground No.1 is regarding confirmation of disallowance of Rs.20,195/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 38. The learned Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,21,807/- by applying the provisions of section

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37(1) and also found it reasonable u/s 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. Further, the appellant has also submitted the judgements in the case of group concerns of the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has justified the deletion of addition on these grounds by the Hon'ble ITATS. Thus the Honourable Gujarat High court, took

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowances. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 3rd June, 2022 at Ahmedabad. In lieu of the explanation and case laws referred it is requested that the intimation order under section 143(1) under relevance may kindly be quashed and in alternative the expenses

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

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 in\nprogress as capital receipts. During the course

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

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

37 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance holding that the predominant purpose was to pay tribute to the departed soul and not to advertise products of the assessee. On further appeal, the Tribunal also accepted the view taken by Ld.CIT(A) and upheld the disallowance

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

disallowance by the AO is qua provision for interest (P2). The same, in his view, has no basis in law, i.e., neither u/s. 36(1)(viia) nor u/s. 37(1), rejecting the assessee’s claim of the same being only in compliance of the income recognition norms stipulated by RBI, so that no unrealised interest on accounts characterised

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

disallowance by the AO is qua provision for interest (P2). The same, in his view, has no basis in law, i.e., neither u/s. 36(1)(viia) nor u/s. 37(1), rejecting the assessee’s claim of the same being only in compliance of the income recognition norms stipulated by RBI, so that no unrealised interest on accounts characterised

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

disallowance by the AO is qua provision for interest (P2). The same, in his view, has no basis in law, i.e., neither u/s. 36(1)(viia) nor u/s. 37(1), rejecting the assessee’s claim of the same being only in compliance of the income recognition norms stipulated by RBI, so that no unrealised interest on accounts characterised

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

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

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 in\nprogress as capital receipts. During the course

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 69C of the Act. He pointed out that AO in her assessment order dated 30.12.2019 had disallowed Rs.2,12,82,278/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of bogus sales cash during the month of October, 2016 but 7 AY 2017-18 M/s Ambajee jewellers Jabalpur failed to disallow the remaining amount of Rs.1,79,65,402/-. This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

disallowed the accounting charges paid u/s 40(a)(ia) and added entire amount u/s 68 and imposed penalty under Sections 271Dand 271E. The tribunal deleted penalty imposed by AO. The High Court held that loans taken were genuine and same was for business Jammu Beg. exigency. It was not case of undisclosed income. Reasonable cause for not levying penalty existed

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

disallowing the claim made by the appellant on account of employee's A.R. Transport vs ITO contribution of PF at Rs 2,37,773/- as the same was paid on or before the due date of filling of the Income Tax Return and is to be allowed as per the proviso of section

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 02/06/2022, the delay was condoned in view of the decision by the Apex Court