DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

reassessment dated 21/3/2016, thus, had no tax impact inasmuch as the tax payable was only consequent to the deemed total income u/s. 115-JB. No penalty, even as explained in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 543 (Del), is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) under such circumstances. Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the said decision has been

KALYANIKA INFRA MEGA VENTURES PVT. LTD,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

15) u/s 255(4) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to the I.T.A. No.49 & 50/Jab/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 Third Member, consequent upon the difference of opinion having arisen between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member to decide the respective questions framed by the Members. 2. The Hon'ble Third Member vide order dated

TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

15) u/s 255(4) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to the I.T.A. No.49 & 50/Jab/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 Third Member, consequent upon the difference of opinion having arisen between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member to decide the respective questions framed by the Members. 2. The Hon'ble Third Member vide order dated

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

reassessment proceedings, for the benefit of the 5 | P a g e Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT Revenue. Suffice to state that we find the assessment proceedings to have been validly initiated, and the absence of jurisdictional fact for proceeding u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C. The finality of concluded proceedings cannot be lightly, if at all, disturbed

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

reassessment order and referred the matter back to the AO. Consequently, no penalty could arise in that year. It is prayed that the appellant be afforded the same equitable treatment for AY 2013-14. 4. Genuine and Bona Fide Error, Not Wilful Non-Compliance - No Mens Rea The appellant is a small trader, not well-versed in digital systems

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

reassessment order and referred the matter back to the AO. Consequently, no penalty could arise in that year. It is prayed that the appellant be afforded the same equitable treatment for AY 2013-14. 4. Genuine and Bona Fide Error, Not Wilful Non-Compliance - No Mens Rea The appellant is a small trader, not well-versed in digital systems

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:

reassessment proceedings though the reasseement notice issue by the Assessing officer is defective and further the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing is sustaining the addition overlooking the voluminous material evidences filed in the assessment and appellate proceedings. On the first issue of validity of issue of notice U/sec148 of the Act, we find the Assessing

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, Ground No.1

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

15 ITA.No.21/JAB/2019 Shri Tarachand Khatri, Jabalpur. To The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Jabalpur. Sub:- Approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of JHRC & Metro Group - reg. Please refer to your letter in F.No ACIT/Central/JBP/ 153D/2017-18 dated 22.12.2017 seeking approval u/s 153D of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of JHRC & Metro

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

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

2) to (5) x x x x x x (6) No deduction shall be made from any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year to the account of a contractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, on the furnishing of his Permanent Account Number

SMT. ASHA YADAV,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

section 194 C of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. 4. That, the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is served to the assessee on 09.04.2018, hence the order is clearly barred by limitation. 5. That, while passing the order u/s 263 no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same