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

section 143(1) by CPC vide DIN no CPC/2021/A7/164769645 dated 30.11.2021 assessing the income of Rs. 17,41,999/ of the assessee trust and demand of Rs. 3,72,020/- was determined therein on account of disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR vs. SHRI RISHAV KUMAR JAIN, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

41,140 TOTAL 4,12,49,060 7. The assessee produced some vouchers regarding the expenses. However, the Assessing Officer accepted the vouchers of bank commission and rejected other expenses. Learned CIT(A) while restricting the addition held as under: “i. Labour Expenses The labour register was produced before the Assessing Officer and no adverse comment was made except

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “actual cost” means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority: Provided…. Provided further… Explanation 1 – 9 … Explanation 10.- Where a portion of the cost

SHRI SHANKARLAL VISHWKARMA,KATNI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC- TDS , GHAZIABAB

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A

POORAN LAL VISHWAKARMA,KATNI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A

SHRI SHANKARLAL VISHWKARMA,KATNI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC- TDS , GHAZIABAB

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

41 ITR 12 and submitted that Section 200A is not prejudicing the general power of the AO to levy penalty. The Ld. DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Biswajit Das vs. Union of India’ 103 Taxman.com 290 referring to the explanatory note for introducing sub clause-c of 200A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under section 69C, per proviso thereto. As such, either way, the entire sale (net realizable) value of the stock, to the extent in excess of book stock, is liable to be added to the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The second aspect that needs to be clarified in this regard is if, on the other hand

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

disallowing the benefit of section 80P(2)(d) for deduction of interest received from district cooperative bank. The claim should have been 1 | P a g e allowed. The addition made at Rs. 1,84,110/- is illegal and unjustified should be deleted. 2. The assessee in the instant case fulfils all the required conditions for deduction under section

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

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)(NFAC) erred on. facts and in law in confirming the assessment made under sec. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 made for A.Y. 2017-18 refusing to condone

VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of Rs. 1,82,009/- being deduction from rental income under section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

41,229/- of the F.Y. 2016-17 before the due date of the filing of the income tax return. He, therefore, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be added back to the income of the assessee and upon receiving a reply which suggested that TDS of Rs. 50,0000/- have been deposited before

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

41,229/- of the F.Y. 2016-17 before the due date of the filing of the income tax return. He, therefore, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be added back to the income of the assessee and upon receiving a reply which suggested that TDS of Rs. 10 ITA No.154/JAB/2016 ITA No.86/JAB/2022 A.Ys

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

Section 40(b)(iii) restricts the allowance of salary and interest to partners, which is only to be as authorized by and in accordance with the instrument of partnership, from the date of the said instrument. Clearly, therefore, there could be no allowance of interest and salary to partners in view of s. 40(b)(iii). The story

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed but the entire investment of Rs. 28,89,600/-. Therefore, he added back the balance of Rs. 7,16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain of Rs. 3,69,039/- only had been added inadvertently instead

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

41,82,013/- deleted by the CIT(A) towards the payment to an unapproved gratuity fund. According to the ld. DR, the payment made to approved gratuity fund alone has to be allowed under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). In this case, the payment was made to an unapproved fund, therefore, it cannot

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

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pathariya Phatak, Damoh Tax, [Pan:Aaacj 7141G] Circle- Sagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.01.2006 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2003-04. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deciding the ground No. 1 and 2 regarding addition of Rs.40,44,451/- in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80 1A, which was unjustified