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

68. Substituted by the Taxation Laws Act, 1970, w.e.f. 1-4-1971. 69. Renumbered by the Direct Tax Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, w.e.f. 1-4-1989. 70. Substituted for clauses (a) and (b) by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1989. Prior to its substitution, clause (a) was amended by the Finance

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

68,102/- c) Kisan Kalyan Cess Rs. 42,52,993/- d) Tax deducted at source Rs.1,88,16,240/- 9. The appellant has also stated that opening balance in TDS payable account as on 01.04.2016 is at Rs. 1,18,42,573/ - and closing balance at Rs. 1,88,16,240/-. There are total credits

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.

12. That The Ld. AO has misdirected himself in law in initiating penalties under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 13. That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the above addition on mere conjectures, surmises and suspicions. 14. That the Ld. NFAC erred in not considering the explanations and submissions furnished

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

12. However, the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, proceeded to pass an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 12.02.2025, without providing the Appellant an opportunity of being heard, 13. The CIT(A) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, upholding the additions made by the AO, despite the Appellant having availed the VSVS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

section 68 is not sustainable. We therefore delete the same and allow ground No.3 of assessee's appeal. 16 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar (vii) In the case of Megha S. Shah v DCIT [2013] 38 CCH 76 the hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad 'C' Bench has held as under :- "11. We have heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

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

C-2(1), Jabalpur, MP Developers, s 353, Swarn Bhoomi, Chaggar Farm, Bilhari, Jabalpur, MP (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHFC 0135 H Assessee by : Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Revenue by : Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by Revenue

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law being ex-parte, thus violating the "principle of natural justice", by not giving proper opportunity to the assessee; who was bedridden due to heart problem and 1 | P a g e was thus prevented in giving replies to the notices which is a reasonable cause

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

C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). A ‘mistake’, in any case, cannot give rise to any right to the other side. Any surviving doubt in the matter would stand quenched with reference to s. 292B. 4.2 Continuing further, as we see it, the assessment

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 SSI. On query, he confirmed the valuation of the sub-grade dump stock (as at the year-end) to be nil, as the entire excavation/production cost had been already absorbed in the respective years, i.e., toward production of finished goods and, further, that it’s sale value was at ₹. 400 pmt. He would though add that both

M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI),JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 SSI. On query, he confirmed the valuation of the sub-grade dump stock (as at the year-end) to be nil, as the entire excavation/production cost had been already absorbed in the respective years, i.e., toward production of finished goods and, further, that it’s sale value was at ₹. 400 pmt. He would though add that both

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (KEVLARI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 SSI. On query, he confirmed the valuation of the sub-grade dump stock (as at the year-end) to be nil, as the entire excavation/production cost had been already absorbed in the respective years, i.e., toward production of finished goods and, further, that it’s sale value was at ₹. 400 pmt. He would though add that both

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. M/S SHOBHA MINERALS (DHAMKI), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Kevlari) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abifs 4245A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Vs. Asst. Cit, 765 Near Anand Talkies, Central Circle, Napier Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs5899N] Assessment Year:2015-16 Asst. Cit(Central), Vs. M/S. Shobha Minerals (Dhamki) Jabalpur 765 Near Anand Talkies, Napier Town, Jabalpur [Pan: Abmfs 5899N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 SSI. On query, he confirmed the valuation of the sub-grade dump stock (as at the year-end) to be nil, as the entire excavation/production cost had been already absorbed in the respective years, i.e., toward production of finished goods and, further, that it’s sale value was at ₹. 400 pmt. He would though add that both

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI , KATNI vs. SHRI SHANKARLAL VISHWKARMA, KATNI

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 Appeals & Cos. was passed on 27/01/2023. 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 a correction of those errors, does not therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI , KATNI vs. SHRI SHANKARLAL VISHWKARMA, KATNI

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 Appeals & Cos. was passed on 27/01/2023. 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 a correction of those errors, does not therefore

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SHANKARLAL VISHWAKARMA,

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 Appeals & Cos. was passed on 27/01/2023. 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 a correction of those errors, does not therefore

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

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for assessment year (AY) 2015- 16 vide order dated 26.12.2017. 1 | P a g e Dy. CIT vs. Tarun Devcon (P.) Ltd. 2.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company in the business of real estate development, having

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit