VIJAY OIL MILLS CO. ,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DAMOH

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijay Oil Mills Co, Vs. Ito 1(1), Maganj Ward No. 4, Damoh Damoh-470661, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv8920C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Rajesh Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 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) Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 24(a) be allowed as expenses /deduction and correct rental income be derived at. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2 above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not in not allowing collection and allied expenses of Rs. 41,383/- as claimed in computation of income as to be deduction from business income. Hence

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Satna, was illegal and bad in law. 3. That the additions so made and confirmed by CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 4. That

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 situated at Bhopal amounting to Rs. 2

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 has filed the return of income ITR 2 for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 6-11-2021 disclosing a total income of Rs,57,36,000/-.Whereas, the assessee has included the foreign salary income of Rs.13

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

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

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, and partly disallowed exemption u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. The learned Commissioner

SHRI PANKAJ GOEL,ITARSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

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

section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) in the captioned appeal was passed on 29/09/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause

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.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in accepting the discount of 25% on encroached MaheswariMukund Das, Jabalpur. properties whereas discount should be more than 25% considering to the adverse possession of properties. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in in not allowing the deduction under section 54F on the ground

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

section 54F of the IT Act as appellant if invested whole amount of capital gain in construction of new property. 7. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

section 68. In the inst 68. In the instant case also, there was sufficient cash balance ant case also, there was sufficient cash balance with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank account

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 that does

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