SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

house property. We further observed that the house property was purchased in the AY 2011- 12 and renovated in the AY 2012-13. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PANKAJ AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

house property\" as per the provisions of\nsection 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SATNA, SATNA vs. SHRI PAWAN AGRAWAL, SATNA

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pawan Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Acjpa5377R (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Naya Tax, Circle- Satna Talab Road, Satna Pan:Afhpa9553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Nema Adv & Sh. Ashish Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. The Above Captioned Appeals By Revenue Are Taken Up Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity & These Appeals Are Hereby Disposed Off Through This Consolidated Order; Because, In These Appeals The Tax Effect Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Fixed By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (“Cbdt”, For Short) In Its Circular No. 09/2024 Dated 17.09.2024. Grounds Taken In These Appeals Of Revenue Are As Under: A.Y 2015-16 Sh. Pawan Agarwal Sh. Pankaj Agarwal

house property" as per the provisions of section 22 of the IT Act, duly enjoying the benefit of deduction provided

ANUPAMA STHAPAK,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

house construction along with purchase deed of plot 7 Copy of reply filed on 27.12.2018 along with electricity bill, payment receipt of property

MAHESHWARI MUKUND DAS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaheshwarimukunddas, Vs. Ito, Ward -2 1288, D B Vallbh Das Jabalpur Palace, Hanumantal, 2Nd Floor, Anxe Bldg, Jabalpur-482002, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhya Pradesh. Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh.

property whereas it was duly filed before both the authorities. 8. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee derives income from house

KAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , SATNA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Kailash Chand Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 51, Pili Building Company Bag, Ward-1, Satna. Satna Pan : Ajlpa 3500B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

property reported in AIR, large cash deposit”. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs.49,67,801/- after making an addition of Rs.7,51,520/- on account of capital gains and further addition of Rs.24,00,771/- on account of undisclosed investment in house

NARMADA INN,BESIDE SHUBH MOTORS, KATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDLA WARD, MANDLA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Narmada Inn, V. Income Tax Officer, Beside Shubh Motors, Katra, Mandla Ward, Mp-481661. Mandla, Mp-481661. Pan:Aagfn9764J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri H. S. Modh, 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

house property income as against the business income and allowed deduction u/s 24(2) at Rs.2,66,052/- as against

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

house property, income from capital gains, income from other sources and also receives salary from foreign country Maynmar. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Jabalpur, Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, 291, Ramanth Building, Napier 01/32/33, Ashirwad Market, Town, Jabalpur-482001 Vs. Lordganj, Jabalpur-482001. Pan No. Achpa 7963 K Appellant Respondent

property Cost of Year of purchase Year of purchase acquisition 1. House No. 666, Bharam House No. 666, Bharam 1749390=00 The assessee

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house may kindly be deleted. 9.The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of theappeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee was a agriculturist. The Assessing Officer (AO) has received the information as per AIR that the assessee has purchased an immovable property

SHRI. NARSINGH RANGA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Narsingh Ranga Dcit, Circle-2(1) V. Sharda Chowk, Nagpur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Napier Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Town, Jabalpur, Madhya 482001. Pradesh-482001. Pan:Acmpr1917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

property. For the year under consideration AO has only to verify that the amount o investment which is to be deposited under section 54 as been invested with bank under long term capital gain scheme or not. That as per the provisions of section 54 of the act only says that the assessee should construct the house

SHRI JASBIR SINGH MARWAH,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Jasbir Singh Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), Marwah, Aayakar Bhawan, 1040 Prem Nagar, Annexe Bldg, Madan Mahal, Nagrath Chowk, Jabalpur-482003 Jabalpur -482001. Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahipm6658H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed The Order U/Sec 143(3) R.W.S 263 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assewssee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

property at Rs 300/- per sq.fts and adopting the rate of Rs 237/- per sq.fts. (6) The Ld CIT(A) erred in supporting the order of Ld AO in valuing the cost of construction at Rs 2,84,400/- for bare structure only and ignoring the cost of other structure and finishing. (7) That Ld CIT(A) erred in supporting

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

housing society. A contract of sale, as any other, presupposes and arises only on the meeting of minds, so that both the seller and buyer are clear and in agreement qua the nature of the land sold, which may in view of the vast price difference between a land being bought for agricultural purposes vis-a-vis for real estate

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.

house. In normal course, the exigency in making cash payments for such expenses cannot be ruled out Where the explanation of the assessee that violation of provisions of s. 269SS was due to certain bona fide belief of the assessee is found to be acceptable, penalty under s 27D is untenable. [CIT vs. Saini Medical Store

KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. PAN:AABCK7797E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order Pr. CIT, Jabalpur passed under section