SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act on 05.12.2017, pursuant to a notice u/s. 148(1) on 22.3.2017. The said notice, as well as those following it, being u/s. 142(1), dated 31.8.2017 (for 12.9.2017) and 27.10.2017 (for 07.11.2017), were handed over by him to his local tax consultant for further necessary action. It is only later, on receipt of assessment order

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act on 05.12.2017, pursuant to a notice u/s. 148(1) on 22.3.2017. The said notice, as well as those following it, being u/s. 142(1), dated 31.8.2017 (for 12.9.2017) and 27.10.2017 (for 07.11.2017), were handed over by him to his local tax consultant for further necessary action. It is only later, on receipt of assessment order

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

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

penalty-initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,000/- by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed.” 2 | P a g e Avnish Kumar Gupta v. ITO From the aforesaid finding by the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the assessee did not communicate his changed address to the Revenue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

11. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 42/Jab/2021: 12. The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

11. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 42/Jab/2021: 12. The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(1)(d) of the Income tax act1961 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and bad in law. (2) That The Ld CIT(A) misunderstood and Misconstructrued the provision of sub clause(v) of the clause (D) of the3 section 115(WB)(i) providing levy of Fringe benefit tax. The Sub-section(2) cover 'expenditure on advertisement by way of sign

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(1)(d) of the Income tax act1961 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and bad in law. (2) That The Ld CIT(A) misunderstood and Misconstructrued the provision of sub clause(v) of the clause (D) of the3 section 115(WB)(i) providing levy of Fringe benefit tax. The Sub-section(2) cover 'expenditure on advertisement by way of sign

MANESSH SHARMA ,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

11 to 2014-15, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS 2. Grounds

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

11 to 2014-15, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS 2. Grounds

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

11 to 2014-15, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS 2. Grounds

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

11 to 2014-15, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS 2. Grounds

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

11 to 2014-15, in relation to penalty levied u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS 2. Grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAWAT, JABALPUR

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

section (provision of law), as long as the authority has the power in exercise of which the relevant judicial action has been taken, would not defeat the same. This, however, is not the case here. That, for instance, would be the case where the assessee had indeed received cash from or on behalf of his wife, attracting a penalty u/s

SALEEM AHMED KHAN, BOON ELECTRONIC, CORPORATION MARKET NAUDARA BRIDGE,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(1) , JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

271(1)(b) and section 250 of the Act. 11. The AO in the course of hearing proceedings has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates, whereas the assessee could not complied with the notices and the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142(1

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD SINGRAULI, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, 14/357, Sanjay Nagar Singrauli, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

u/s 272A(1)(d). While furnishing the details of appeal there is no column for section under which penalty levied, as such section of penalty is selected 271(1)(b) being corresponding section 2.The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 16.03.2018 disclosing a total income

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) includes any income referred to in section 68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to section 68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 2. BPLOO0860G Mining Office H 1,41,33,000 3,19,818 2010-11 Balaghat 3. NGPAO2538E ALTAF 94C 48,15,254 48,154 2010-11 Ahmed 3,67,972 Thus, the gross receipts of Rs.1,89,48,254/- based on information available on 26AS generated through system, but the assessee's version saying receipts are estimated as mentioned

NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BANDA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

u/s. 69A as unexplained money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play