BHARATKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.18,87,730 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

87,083 was allowed in violation of section 40(a)(ia) as there was no proof of the payee being, as claimed, a senior citizen. Declaration from the depositor in Form-15H stood duly submitted to the Department on 07.4.2008, as recorded by the AO in the reassessment order. Adverting thereto, he would submit that there could thus

M/S. R M SALES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

disallowing the claim made by the appellant aggregating to Rs 2,87,332/comprising of employee’s contribution of PF Rs 2,68,582/- and Gratuity of Rs 18,750/- by applying section

RAJSILA STONE CRUSHER,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 2 , REWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajsila Stone Crusher V. Income Tax Officer Prop Shri Pushpraj Singh, 15 Ward-2 Shastri Nagar, Gopadbanas, Income Tax Office, Kothi Distt-Sidhi-486661. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aalfr4762R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

Section 4Oa(ia) of the Act the appellant should not be deemed assessee in default and confirming the addition of Rs. 7,24,937/on the ground that it was inserted w.e.f 01.04.2013 by ignoring all the Judgments relied on by the appellant that it is retrospective in nature. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Delhi

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 144 and further erred in mentioning that assessee has produced partial purchase bills only during assessment proceeding 12. The revision order dated 19/01/2022 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 13. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have gone through

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have gone through

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

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance following the binding precedents in the case of the assessee itself. For ready-reference, the finding of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. No.263/Jab/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 No217/Jab/2015 and others for AY 2007-08 and others dated 27.04.2018 is reproduced as under:- 18. “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pathariya Phatak, Damoh Tax, [Pan:Aaacj 7141G] Circle- Sagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.01.2006 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2003-04. 2. The appeal raises the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deciding the ground No. 1 and 2 regarding addition of Rs.40,44,451/- in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80 1A, which was unjustified

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed, for a year, is also impacted by the opening provision, as where the same, instead of being adjusted (through receipt of interest), continues to obtain and, in fact, increased (as at the relevant year-end) due to re-categorization of the corresponding asset, as, say, from a ‘doubtful asset’ to a ‘loss asset’, qualifying for provision @ 100%, increasing

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK SINGH BANAFER, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

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

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 4.2 We may begin by delineating the case of either side before us. The Revenue

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

disallowance. The same was held retrospective by the Apex Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra). Vide the second proviso to sec.43B, the sums specified in clause (b) were treated differently from others specified in s.43B (vide other clauses thereof) inasmuch as these would be entitled to deduction only on the credit to the employee’s account with the relevant

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

disallowance. The same was held retrospective by the Apex Court in Allied Motors(P.) Ltd. (supra). Vide the second proviso to sec.43B, the sums specified in clause (b) were treated differently from others specified in s.43B (vide other clauses thereof) inasmuch as these would be entitled to deduction only on the credit to the employee’s account with the relevant

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 26/12/2006 and 24/12/2007 for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively, vide his orders dated 09/03/2016 & 13/03/2016 respectively. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience, even as was by the Tribunal