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

56,603/- is not a part of statutory dues nor an\nexpenditure; which is in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee to which provisions\nof section 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 could be invoked.\n5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,21,215/-\nassessed under the head income from other sources after

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:-

2. Briefly Stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2021, which was processed by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru [“CPC”] vide intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 03.11.2021, wherein contribution to Employees State Insurance [“ESI”]/Provident Fund [“PF”] amounting to Rs. 4,56,690/- was disallowed

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

In the result, ITA No.154/JAB/2016 is held to be allowed for statistical\npurposes while ITA No

56,603/- is not a part of statutory dues nor an\nexpenditure; which is in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee to which provisions\nof section 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 could be invoked.\n5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,21,215/-\nassessed under the head income from other sources after

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

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

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.

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 and Deduction Claimed u/s. 57 of the Income Tax in Revised LT. Return does

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.

section 263 are not satisfied. The order made is without jurisdiction should be quashed. 2. That, The learned PCIT has failed to record specific finding based on case specific facts that the order made u/s 143(3) by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order should be annulled. I.T.A. No.37/Jab/2022 Assessment Year:2015-16 2

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

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

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

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

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)

disallowance is permissible in law that too merely on presumption. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,470/- made by the AO on the ground that these expenses could not be fully verified, whereas the appellant has submitted vouchers in support of these expenses, even after

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)

2. The facts of the case are that there was an information related to the assessee that she was involved in obtaining bogus short term capital loss by furnishing fabricated anti dated contract note of shares of Ashutosh Paper Mills Limited. On this basis, the case was taken up under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and an addition

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:

2 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar denied of having made any transactions with the assessee or having any credit balance with the assessee. This fact of the denial made in writing by the said party was confronted to the assessee. But the assessee contended that it had made purchases from said party through