SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

business, salary, and interest. The Appellant filed his return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 on 07.09.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 16,26,700/-. 2. Subsequently, the Appellant’s case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the Appellant

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

68 of\nthe Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)\nand 271(1)(b) of the Act.\n3. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before\nthe ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that the appeal, which was\nto be filed by 25.03.2022, had only been filed

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

business premises of the assessee on 09/12/2016. The assessee after verification of details has surrendered Rs.31,28,000/- after adjusting the amount debited in the books of account for construction expenses and adopting valuation at Rs.40,00,000/- as surrendered. Further, it is observed from the audited Profit & Loss Account for the F.Yr.2016-2017 an amount of Rs.31

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

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

business of providing long -term finance for industrial projects and eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; 54[(d) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub - section (4) of section

SHRI PRINCE RAI,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

68,712 (pg. 29/PB-II), which explains the observation hereinbefore of the conduct of the parties being in conformity with law. The maintenance of accounts is itself rendered inconsequential under such circumstances, i.e., even assuming their maintenance, asserted by the ld. counsel during hearing. Further, it may be that the storage-godown is for the warehouse business, commenced during the previous

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 68. It was submitted that the learned Assessing Officer had been asked to issue summons during the assessment proceedings but had not done so. Furthermore, these creditors were related to business and details in respect of them had been submitted. Furthermore, these were not unsecured loans but secured creditors and these secured loans were lying deposited with departments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SIDDHIVINAYAK EDUCATION SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business and profession, was required to claim expenses as per provision of section 28 to 43B. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society is not registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and engaged in providing skill training courses to students. The 2 Shri Sidhivinayak Education Society the assessee filed return

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business (0.5% of the gross receipts in case of the profession); or INR 1.50 Lakhs. I.T.A. No.124/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 5 Thus, provisions of section 2738 provides that no penalty shall be imposable on person or assessee, as case may be, referred to in said provisions, if it proves that there is a reasonable cause for said failure. Since

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 12.09.2016. 2.1 The facts of the case, to the extent relevant, are that the assessee, a Government company in the business of power generation, filed its' return of income for the relevant year on 29/9/2009 at an income

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that he had engaged in bogus purchase and sale transaction. The said proceedings had resulted in orders under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that he had engaged in bogus purchase and sale transaction. The said proceedings had resulted in orders under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) , JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK JAISWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Business Income of Rs.1,21,48,371/ -? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,69,43,790/ - made on 2 CO No. 17/JAB/2019 Deepak Jaiswal account of unexplained credit under section 68

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

68,270/- and agriculture income of Rs.2,02,500/- for the assessment year 2015-16. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the following reasons: 1. Income/Capital gain on sale of land or building 2. Income from real estate business 3. Sundry creditors 4. Large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover as compared

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

business cases’). Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not submit any reply to these notices. The ld. AO, thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 24.01.2021, but the assessee did not respond to the same. Therefore, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee had nothing

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

business cases’). Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not submit any reply to these notices. The ld. AO, thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 24.01.2021, but the assessee did not respond to the same. Therefore, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee had nothing

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,125/-. As against this amount, the investment in FDR as on 31.3.2007 is Rs.93,09,55,960/-. These figures speak that the assessee has parked the funds in FDRS much more than the unsecured loans from directors and shareholders. This fact also proves that the assessee was keeping funds ready to use at times of business needs either

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,125/-. As against this amount, the investment in FDR as on 31.3.2007 is Rs.93,09,55,960/-. These figures speak that the assessee has parked the funds in FDRS much more than the unsecured loans from directors and shareholders. This fact also proves that the assessee was keeping funds ready to use at times of business needs either

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,125/-. As against this amount, the investment in FDR as on 31.3.2007 is Rs.93,09,55,960/-. These figures speak that the assessee has parked the funds in FDRS much more than the unsecured loans from directors and shareholders. This fact also proves that the assessee was keeping funds ready to use at times of business needs either