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)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order

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)

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order

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.

section 40A(3) is applicable and in our considered opinion, the CIT(A) committed no error in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.20,195/- and we find no merit in the ground No. 1 of the C.O. of the assessee. 39. Ground No. 2 of the Cross Objection is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- out of telephone

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

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

2 Copy of 12A certificate 3 Copy of Audited Balance sheet as on 31.03.2020 4 Copy of Chartered Accountant Certificate 5 Copy of the Hon’ble ITAT Lucknow Branch Lucknow order in the case Desh Bharti Public School Samiti vs Thhe AO/DCIT CPC, Bangalore ITA No.09/Lkw/2022 6 Copy of the Hon’ble ITAT Patna DB Branch at Kolkata order

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

2,33,394/- as agriculture income out of Rs. 5,58,660- /earned and declared by the assessee. 6 Considering the facts that assessee had receive a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Smt. Madhu Agrawal and Rs. 45,00,000/- from Ms. Shivani Agarwal by account payee cheque, depositors are identified and capable of lending said amount, transaction

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

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

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the fact that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless

PHOENIX POULTRY,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 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/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 234A and 234 B cannot be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case of the CIT vs Hindustan Elector Graphics Ltd) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the 2. The brief facts of the case

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 expenditure claimed under section 57 of Rs. 2

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

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case for confirming the addition of Rs.2571720/- on account of delayed payment of EPF & ESI under section 36 of the Income Tax ACT 1961.The disallowance is not justified it is contrary to the provisions of section 43B,the entire addition should be quashed. 3. The addition

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

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case for confirming the addition of Rs.2571720/- on account of delayed payment of EPF & ESI under section 36 of the Income Tax ACT 1961.The disallowance is not justified it is contrary to the provisions of section 43B,the entire addition should be quashed. 3. The addition

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

2 of 5 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the addition of Rs.22,68,087/- on account of sum received from HPCL whereas the sum of Rs.22,68,087/- was received as transport contractor and income of Rs. 1,45,505.00/- was already mentioned

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 14.11.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) supporting the order of Ld AO is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and with jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

2, to section 263 of the Act. The A.O. has simply relied and accepted the ITR along with audit report filed by the assessee on the portal” 4. The Pr.CIT has issued e-notice U/sec 263 of the Act but there was no compliance and observed at Para 4 & 5 of the order as under: 4. Therefore, proceedings under section

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ,NARSINGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. Considering the fact that Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable in the case of assessee, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2030003/- made by ld AO towards payment of Board Fee. 3. Considering the fact that the gratuity and pension Rs.53328/- is not covered in section 43B, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,NARSINGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. Considering the fact that Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable in the case of assessee, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2030003/- made by ld AO towards payment of Board Fee. 3. Considering the fact that the gratuity and pension Rs.53328/- is not covered in section 43B, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance