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

sections": [ "147", "144", "68", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently

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

147 read with section 144B of the Act, wherein the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.26,29,800/-under section 68

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices on the email of the accountant, who did not look into it. The assessee submitted that as such he was unaware about the hearing

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)

147 r.w.s. 144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices on the email of the accountant, who did not look into it. The assessee submitted that as such he was unaware about the hearing

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.

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and 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

DAYANAND PARYANI,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Dayanand Paryani V. Income Tax Officer Madhur Courier Service Income Tax Office, Opposite Raj Vilas Hotel, Singrauli, Tali Road, Martand Complex Rew, Sidhi- Waidhan, Singrauli- 486001. 486886 Pan: Aespp8087N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act without considering the alternate submission of the appellant that if at all addition have to be made it is to made only of peak credit. 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that an information

RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

147 read with section 144 dated 30.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex- party order without providing adequate opportunity as only three dates for hearing were fixed and that too in the peak periods of filling of tax audits, income tax returns

AMARJEER PRASAD JAISWAL,SINGRAULI vs. ITO,SINGRAULI WARD, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjeet Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito, Amarjeet Photocopy, Singrauli Ward, Chitrangi, Singrauli, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh-486882 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arzpa1544R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 1 | P a g e 02. Because the Learned CITA has failed to associate the fact that the Appellant is engaged in the business of providing E Pay services of MP Online Limited & earning service charges thereon and whole of the cash deposited in the bank account stands fully explained

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

68,087/- was received as transport contractor and income of Rs. 1,45,505.00/- was already mentioned as other income. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,82,264/- without appreciating that in view of settled legal position the expenses cannot be disallowed when no income from exempt income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It has also not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to furnish Form 10DB as required by the Assessing Officer to establish the payment of Security Transaction Tax which would establish the genuinity of the share transaction. 2. Although the tax effect involved in this

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

68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged in appeal', attaining finality. 2.2 In the penalty proceedings, initiated

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

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

147 ITR 676 (Mad.) 7.2 Income, which is by definition only net of expenses, is to be assessed and chargeable to tax only in the right year, law in the matter is well settled and toward which one may refer to decisions the CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); CIT vs. Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons

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

147, allowing time to the assessee to respond, disposed its’ objections to the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1) per a separate, speaking order. The question whether the procedural infirmity was fatal, had already been, as stated by the Tribunal, decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court per case law cited by the revisionary authority himself, admitting

BHUPENDRA SINGH,NARSINGHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhupendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Bhabha Ward, Gadarawara Ward Narsinghpur, Narsinghpur (Mp)-487551. Narsinghpur (Mp)- 487001. Tan/Pan:Gbdps6826N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra S. Thakur, Ca Shri Avinash Mishra, Ca Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, without affording reasonable opportunity and considering the reply / submission/ explanation and documents submitted during assessment proceeding the assessment order passed by AO may please be set aside to the file of assessing officer for fresh consideration. Page 2 of 5 3. That the CIT Appeal as well as assessing officer