SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Sh. Ghai would before us further add that s. 194C(7) is even otherwise independent of s. 194C(6). 5.3 The same, however, did not find acceptance by the ld. Pr. CIT; the operative part of the impugned order reading as under: „5. The assessee has not complied with the provisions of section

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.

6. Now, coming to the merits of the case; apropos issue no.1 relating to disallowance of interest of Rs.26,71,657/-, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made a disallowance under Section

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.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in i allowing relief of Rs.50,000/- out of total addition of Rs.79,500/- made by the AO as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on expenses on professional charges. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

6 Adjustment under section 143(1)(a) is not permissible on both these aspects. Therefore, we allow appeal of the assessee, and delete both the disallowances

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

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

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

Section 48 of the I.T Act. Adhoc disallowance: 6. The AO has observed that assessee has claimed shop expenses, telephone

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 40A(2)(b) to make the disallowance of interest expenditure paid to relatives. We find no justification in the addition so made. We, therefore, delete the same and allow ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th March, 2018 at Jabalpur. (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL

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

disallowed following sum placing reliance on provisions of section 43B of the Act; 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the rules for payment of Service Taxed. The rules for payment of service tax 8 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. has been provided in section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 as well as in Rule

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) of the Act and disallowed 50% expenses. It is found that the learned CIT(A) while holding the tractor expenses of Rs.10,54,750/- as reasonable, has not relied on any of the documents. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find reasonable to restrict the disallowance to Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.10

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

6. The order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law as the reopening of assessment is without any basis as all the information was duly available before the AO during the original proceedings and the reopening is the change of opinion. 7. The order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

MEHROTRA BUILDCON PVT.LTD,SATNA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds the CPC and CIT Appeal is not justified in disallowing the employers contribution that is covered by section43(B). The disallowance of employers contribution may please be allowed. 6

MEHROTRA BUILDCON PVT.LTD,SATNA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSINOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds the CPC and CIT Appeal is not justified in disallowing the employers contribution that is covered by section43(B). The disallowance of employers contribution may please be allowed. 6

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.

6,99,340/- was disclosed in the return of income filed on 01.10.2010. Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and necessary notices under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs.27 lakhs from three parties at Rs.9 lakhs

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

section 80P of the act without appreciating the facts that commission was received from the Government agency and TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 6

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

6,63,000/- to the income of the appellant by applying the provision of section 68 of the Act. 5. That the applicant itself has disallowed

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee took note of the matter to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. On the issue of non-payment of statutory dues, it was submitted that rural infrastructure tax amounting to Rs.23,01,000/- (out of total amount of Rs.23,20,613/-) had been paid between 8.05.2017 and 29.05.2017. It was further submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee took note of the matter to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. On the issue of non-payment of statutory dues, it was submitted that rural infrastructure tax amounting to Rs.23,01,000/- (out of total amount of Rs.23,20,613/-) had been paid between 8.05.2017 and 29.05.2017. It was further submitted that

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 in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub- 6 section