SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JABALPUR

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

natural justice. 1 | P a g e Bhag Chand Jain v. Dy. CIT 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that benefit of section 54C cannot given in parts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the relevant material or evidence on record regarding house property

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

house property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the NFAC, challenging the various additions made. The NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal on I.T.A. No.47/Jab/2023 2 the ground that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee on the dates, when the assessee was required to submit various details/ responses. Now, the assessee has approached the ITAT, challenging

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

House No.1806, Purani Basti, Ward-2(5), Jabalpur. A Temerbhita Kajarwara, p Jabalpur. [PAN: AAKPU 3939 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 01/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench This is a set of four Appeals by two different, albeit related, assessees, agitating the order/s under

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

House No.1806, Purani Basti, Ward-2(5), Jabalpur. A Temerbhita Kajarwara, p Jabalpur. [PAN: AAKPU 3939 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 01/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench This is a set of four Appeals by two different, albeit related, assessees, agitating the order/s under

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

House No.1806, Purani Basti, Ward-2(5), Jabalpur. A Temerbhita Kajarwara, p Jabalpur. [PAN: AAKPU 3939 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 01/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench This is a set of four Appeals by two different, albeit related, assessees, agitating the order/s under

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

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

House No.1806, Purani Basti, Ward-2(5), Jabalpur. A Temerbhita Kajarwara, p Jabalpur. [PAN: AAKPU 3939 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 01/07/2022 ORDER Per Bench This is a set of four Appeals by two different, albeit related, assessees, agitating the order/s under

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:

natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Id CIT (A) erred in not considering notice under section 148 issued on 22/3/2018 as defective and resulting assessment order as bad in law on reason that AO has recorded reason for reopening in the name of Shri SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK legal hier of late Ram Karan Pathak while

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

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

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