BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

section 80P of the act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed by the AO and also by CPC and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

section 80P of the act without appreciating that in subsequent year it was duly allowed by the AO and also by CPC and hence disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. 5

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.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in allowing relief of Rs.3,99,129/- out of total disallowance of Rs.5,99,129/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of telephone and mobile expenses incurred. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S.TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION (PAN AACFT8104E), OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BURHAR, DIST.- SHAHDOL (M.P.)

In the result, issue no.3 raised by the Revenue in ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 25/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Tirupati Construction, Income-Tax, Vs Opp. Railway Station, Burhar, Central Circle Distt. – Shahdol (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aacft 8104 E / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr Assessee By : Shri B.K. Nema, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Jabalpur Dated 14.03.2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit(A)2/Jbp/Acit/Cir/Katni/024/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 17.03.2015 Framed By The Acit, Circle-Katni.

Section 132 of the Act and therefore assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer is not valid. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition of ACIT Vs. Tirupati Construction AY : 2012-13 Rs.26,71,657/- for disallowance

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

5) of section 11; (b) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (c) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged

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

5 In the second contentions, she contended that both the issues are debatable that cannot be adjudicated under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the Revenue authorities. He placed on record copy of ITAT's order in the case of the Trustees, The B.N. Gamadia Parsi Hunnarshala

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch

ULTRA CLEAN AND CARE SERVICES P LTD. ,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly, submitted that disallowance for employee’s share of contribution for ESI/PF may be disallowed in view of the decision of the 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 . Regarding the balance amount of disallowance

ULTRA CLEAN AND CARE SERVICES P LTD. ,JABALPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly, submitted that disallowance for employee’s share of contribution for ESI/PF may be disallowed in view of the decision of the 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 . Regarding the balance amount of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

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

disallowance, since deleted in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‗CIT(A)‘, for short) vide his order dated 08/07/2020 in respect of the assessee‘s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘ hereinafter), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds

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.

5 or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144." 6.1.6. Therefore, the AO is not justified in disallowing

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

Section 68 of the Act alongwith disallowance of some expenses amounting to Rs.2,03,850/- and assessee total income at Rs.36,03,190/-. Appeal before the ld. CIT(A) brought part relief to the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal. “1. That the Learned CIT(A) as well

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

disallowance of interest is unwarranted the addition of Rs. 5,28,665/- should be deleted. 3. The addition of Rs. 91,233/- u/s.43B is uncalled for should be deleted. 4. The assessment order framed by additional commissioner is without jurisdiction. The additional ground should have been allowed. The order of assessment should be annulled. 5. The learned

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

5. Apropos ground no.1, which relates to the addition of Rs.1,24,518/- made on account of the difference in weight of Gram Account, we find that the assessee’s books of accounts are audited under Section 44AB of the Act and assessee maintains all the bills for purchase and sales. No discrepancy has been pointed out by the auditors

M/S NARSINGH EXTRACTION & ALLIED PRODUCTS P. LTD,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Narsingh Extraction & Vs Asst.Cit, Allied Products P.Ltd., Circle-2(1), 389, Gupteshwar Ward, Jabalpur Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn2387H Assessee By Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

section 68 of the Act. 5. That the applicant itself has disallowed the amount u/s 43B of the current year

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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub- clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SIDDHIVINAYAK EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

5 under the head in come from other sources and has claimed expenditures under section 57 instead of under the head income from business and profession. Accordingly, AO disallowed

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub- clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance may be confirmed. 5. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that in the instant case, the assessee had inadvertently filed Form 10-IB before the due date of filing of the return, which is the prescribed form for availing the concessional rate of tax for manufacturing companies under section