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 40A(3) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition wherever the payments were made in cash less

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution to the employees’ provident fund and the employees’ state insurance fund, on account of the same having been deposited (by the assessee-employer) beyond the due dates for the deposit thereof under the 1 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT relevant statute. The assessee

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

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.,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 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

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

M/S GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/09/2017 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue concerns the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1,59,100, being ten percent of the claim in respect of travel expenditure (i.e., Rs.15.91 lacs

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

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

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

37(1) of the Act, if it could not be allowed under 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

HARSHU CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15 Harshu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur- 482002 Jabalpur [Pan: Aabch 9808B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 26/8/2016 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The only issue arising for adjudication in this appeal is the maintainability of the disallowance, in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, of a sum of Rs.3,86,775, being 10% of the expenditure claimed under

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

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