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.

section 145(3). He disallowed the 50% of the expenses without any basis. The assessing officer has made the above

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.

disallowance of professional charges of Rs. 79,500/- by applying the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is decided as under:- (i) As per the detail submitted by the assessee, out of professional charges of Rs. 79,500/- no TDS was required to be deducted under I.T.A. No.104/Jab/2018 C.O.No.03/Jab/2018 12 Assessment Year:2014-15 section 194J

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

50,261/- for disallowance of hamali expenses. The addition should be deleted. AY: 2005-06 1. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,524/- on account of disallowance of loss in cotton sold to sister concern. The addition should be deleted. 2. The confirmation of addition

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 44AB of the Act and assessee maintains all the bills for purchase and sales. No discrepancy has been pointed out by the auditors. The assessee also submitted that when weighing of the material is done, then one piece of bardana either of 50 kg or 100 kg is kept at the side along with the weight which

SHRI D.P.AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RENGE -1, JABALPUR

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 27/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri D. P. Agrawal, Additional Commissioner Of 1392, Main Road, Gorakhpur, Vs Income-Tax, Jabalpur (Mp) Range-1, Pan : Acxpa 0688 H Jabalpur / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur Dated 24Th April, 2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/(A)-1/Ad.Cit-R-1/Jbp/319/2009-10, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 21.12.2009 Framed By The Acit, Range-1, Jabalpur.

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making disallowance of Rs.1,50

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

50,000/- made by the A.O. without highlighting as to how and to what extent element of personal user is involved in shop expenses of Rs.53,245/-, generator expenses of Rs.1,51,258/- as also in travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs.1,33,697/ - when these are incurred exclusively for business. The disallowance being arbitrary and excessive be deleted

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

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

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

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, 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

50,80,623/- and business promotion expenses of Rs. 2,82,229/-. The entire expense were to the tune of Rs. 2,05,82,834/-. Therefore, the AO on ad-hoc basis disallowed sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and added back to the income of the appellant holding that these expenses are not verifiable. The ld. CIT(A) restricted

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 Rs. 48,13,449/ out of sub-let wages of Rs. 1,60,44,830/- under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source under sec. 194C of the Act without any opportunity to the appellant is unjustified, unwarranted and arbitrary. The same deserves to be deleted in toto

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

50,0000/- have been deposited before the due date of the filing of the return, he gave relief for the same and added back an amount of Rs. 24,91,229/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee took note of the matter to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. On the issue

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

50,0000/- have been deposited before the due date of the filing of the return, he gave relief for the same and added back an amount of Rs. 24,91,229/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee took note of the matter to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. On the issue

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

50 (SC)). Clearly, therefore, the merits of the case of the opposing sides aside, the Revenue’s case can survive only where the Explanations to section 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted simultaneously by Finance Act, 2021, remove the allowance (or otherwise) of the impugned sums outside the realm of controversy, which has in fact attended it for long, with

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

50 (SC)). Clearly, therefore, the merits of the case of the opposing sides aside, the Revenue’s case can survive only where the Explanations to section 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted simultaneously by Finance Act, 2021, remove the allowance (or otherwise) of the impugned sums outside the realm of controversy, which has in fact attended it for long, with

SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JABALPUR

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

disallowed exemption u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in giving relief only to the extent of constructed area of the house whereas as per section 54F cost of complete house including garden open space and parking space other etc. are exempted. 5. The learned

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

50% of the eligible rate of 60%, having been put to use for a period of less than 180 days during the year. In view of the Assessing Officer (AO), section 43(1) read with Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under, was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case: 43. Definitions of certain terms relevant to income

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