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.

7 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. Ground No. 8 is regarding deleting the addition of Rs.1,81,712/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee. 34. The assessee claimed labour charges expenses of Rs.11,74,914/- and mines expenses of Rs.24,59,316/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance

M/S RAMBILAS GATTANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 01/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   M/S. Rambilas Gattani, Income Tax Officer, Mohta Plot, Tilak Ward, Vs Ward 1, Pipariya, Dist. Hoshangabad

Section 40A(2)(b) to make the disallowance of interest expenditure paid to relatives. We find no justification in the addition so made. We, therefore, delete the same and allow ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th March, 2018 at Jabalpur. (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL

LATE SHRI TIRATH RAJ SINGH,THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH, VIDEH NIKUNJ, NEAR JAWAHAR PARK, SIDHI(M.P),SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, , REWA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Tirath Raj Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Through Legal Heir Shri Rewa (Mp) Gyanendra Singh, Videh Nikunj, Jawahar Park, Sidhi (Mp) Pan : Ajkps7948G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri H.S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the assessment order which deals with the issue at hand. The same is being reproduced hereinunder: “From the verification of Cement Account it is noticed that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAGAR vs. SHRI BIRMANAND SUNDRANI, SAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 61/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2014-15   Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Birmanand Sundarani, Income-Tax, Vs Sindhi Colony, Bina, Sagar (Mp) Circle Sagar Pan : Anjps 0520 P / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Jabalpur Dated 4Th September, 2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowance to 30% of salary ignoring the fact that the allowability of expenses in previous assessment year would not obviate the need to establish the expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the business. ACIT Vs. Shri Birmanand Sundrani AY : 2014-15 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving cognizance to the fact that the amount of Rs.49

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the said 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Krishna Construction Company expenses under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had shown receipt of Rs.20,38,532/- from Executive Engineer, Bansagar, Keoti Canal Division, Rewa, but as per 26AS, the assessee was seen