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

disallowing interest Rs.42,16,333/- on loans and advances given by the assessee.” 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of written submissions for the sake of clarity the written submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: - “The Appellant respectfully submits the present appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed

M/S VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP, 656, VIJAY NAGAR , DAMOH ROAD , ,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1) , JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Varsma Engineers Vs Asst. Director Of Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Income Tax, Cpc, Damoh Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bengaluru. Acit, Circle-1(1), Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefv7885Q Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2022 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year 2020-21, Raising Following Grounds:-

56,690/- was disallowed and adjusted to the returned income. On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) referred the amendment made to section

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

56,280/- and Rs.50,000/- u/s 43CA and disallowed the expenses respectively. The learned Pr. CIT is of the opinion that the Assessing Officer did not enquire about the genuineness of the transactions made with Nemi Kochar and also failed to obtain copy of agreement in support of determining the Fair Market Value of the property u/s 43CA

YUVIKA ALLOYS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Yuvika Alloys, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1(1), Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan : Aabfy 1482H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajeev Nema, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2022

disallowances in respect of cash purchases (at Rs.1,56,901) and liquidated damages (Rs. 1 Yuvika Alloys v. ITO 1,32,137), i.e., aggregating to Rs. 2,89,038, to the returned income, assessing the income at Rs.6,48,980. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, due to the sickness

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 69C of the Act. He pointed out that AO in her assessment order dated 30.12.2019 had disallowed Rs.2,12,82,278/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of bogus sales cash during the month of October, 2016 but 7 AY 2017-18 M/s Ambajee jewellers Jabalpur failed to disallow the remaining amount of Rs.1,79,65,402/-. This

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

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

section 271(1)(c). The ld. AO also observed that the assessee, who is a property developer had shown a sum of Rs.1,04,56,475/- towards land development. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the land which had been developed and he submitted the same. However, he was unable to submit vouchers on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

disallowed, assessing the income (under the regular provisions) at (-) Rs.1,06,68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged

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)

section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee had transferred certain shares to her demat account on 26.03.2012 with a value of Rs. 3,56,680/- @ 24.10 per share but had failed to substantiate her claim that these shares that were credited in her demat account were the same shares that had earlier been purchased

SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

disallowed the amount of Rs. 51,52,446/- claimed as deduction and added the same back to the income of the assessee. For the same, he quoted from the provisions of section 58 and concluded that the deduction claimed, had to be shown to not fall under the conditions spelt out in that section. Since, the assessee had not responded

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , , JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION , KATNI

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance of remuneration paid to partner, Shri Sanjay Pathak. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the provisions of section 40(b) of the IT Act as the partner has not worked for whole year. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

56,93,110/- on 28.09.2016 and Rs.14,45,94,570/- on 07.10.2017 respectively. The returns of income were selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and complied with. The 2 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

56,93,110/- on 28.09.2016 and Rs.14,45,94,570/- on 07.10.2017 respectively. The returns of income were selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and complied with. The 2 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

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

sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Given the clear law, the issue arising to our mind is principally one of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any settlement has been, as claimed, arrived at between the parties, much less during the current year, i.e., on the first day of the accounting year, on which the debit notes were entered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

disallowed expenditure claimed. Tribunal held that though purchases were from bogus parties, nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus, so not the entire amount, but profit margin embedded in such amount only would be subjected to tax. The High Court held, whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially

BARNALI SAMANTA,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD2(5), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,49,771/- netting total loss at Rs.(-) 62,243/-, and this issue has been considered. 5. It is found that the learned Assessing Officer travelled beyond the issue involved in the “limited scrutiny” and made enquiries regarding the ‘bank deposits’ to the tune of Rs.7,25,000/- made on different dates. Accordingly, made addition of Rs.7