INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

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

disallowance made by ld AO in regard to transport expense of Rs. 1,25,80,754/- by applying the provision of section

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.

80,550 Labor Equipment 2,50,130 Labor Deduction 6,99,317 Labor Charges 3,11,64,117 Loading Charges 2,59,170 Office Expenses 2,02,733 Other Deductions 30,64,923 Royalty 17,55,222 Stationery 25,430 Tender Fees 79,387 Other Taxes 78,475 Vehicle Maintenance 6,60,605 Water Tax 11,41,140 TOTAL

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

section 43B of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id AO was not justified in disallowing Rs. 80

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

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

section its being disallowed. 9 Considering the fact that assessee paid Rs. 2,40,000/as consultancy fee and Rs. 4,00,000/- as salary to his daughter — Sumedha Agrawal who is well qualified in MBA and giving her valuable service to the assessee for his business. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount of Rs. 2,80

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

section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and net income from other sources has been shown Rs. 48,300/- and hence the assessee has wrongly filed ITR in a different form and hence the disallowances have been rightly made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The snippets of the written submission filed by the assesese before

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

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.P.Tobacco Products Vs Asst.Cit, Pvt.Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar (M.P.) Damoh (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

section 80-IA of the Act and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (supra). In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra), with due respect, other cases cited

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

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

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

80,732. During the assessment\nproceedings details required by AO were submitted. It is submitted that if\nthe A as disallowed 10 percent lump-sum of salary by stating that the\nexpenses are not explained properly. Addition made by AO is not correct\nand the same may kindly be deleted. Against the order passed assessee\nmade an appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

disallowed the accounting charges paid u/s 40(a)(ia) and added entire amount u/s 68 and imposed penalty under Sections 271Dand 271E. The tribunal deleted penalty imposed by AO. The High Court held that loans taken were genuine and same was for business Jammu Beg. exigency. It was not case of undisclosed income. Reasonable cause for not levying penalty existed

RAJESH JAIN,TIKAMGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Jain, The Pcit, Gwalior, Prop. M/S Gyan Tube Wells, Aayakar Bhavan City Centre Mau Chungi Road, Vs. Gwalior, M.P.472001. Tikamgarh-472001. Pan No. Aoqoj 4456 D Appellant Respondent

section 263 does not authorize him to start fishing and roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already roving enquiries in matters of orders which are already concluded. concluded.  That the Order passed by Assessing Officer in accordance That the Order passed by Assessing Officer in accordance That the Order

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

disallowance as directed by Ld. PCIT. On further appeal, the assessee brought to the knowledge of Ld.CIT(A) that the Tribunal has quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, consequent order of the AO does not survive. However, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order by observing as under:- 5. “During the appellate proceedings the appellant