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

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is appeal of the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act on 30.08.2018.The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

17,232/- I.T.A. No.124/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 4 1. Rs 1,50,000/- of (whichever is less) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I hereby ampere penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- 271B of IT Act, 1961. The order is being passed after obtaining necessary approval uls 274 of the IT Act, 1961.” (B.2) The assessee

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:

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: 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

17 09 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.05.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner

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)

17 (*) Part-I of the return contains the assessee’s (and its’ mines’) particulars, and is therefore not reproduced. The graphic depiction of the process, as explained, would be as under: Table 4A Excavation (100) (ROM) Hematite (85) Laterite (10) Manganese (5) (sold as such) (sold as such) Fines (8.5) semi-processed (76.5) (saleable) (*) Lumps (8.5) Low-Grade (68)(sold

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)

17 (*) Part-I of the return contains the assessee’s (and its’ mines’) particulars, and is therefore not reproduced. The graphic depiction of the process, as explained, would be as under: Table 4A Excavation (100) (ROM) Hematite (85) Laterite (10) Manganese (5) (sold as such) (sold as such) Fines (8.5) semi-processed (76.5) (saleable) (*) Lumps (8.5) Low-Grade (68)(sold

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)

17 (*) Part-I of the return contains the assessee’s (and its’ mines’) particulars, and is therefore not reproduced. The graphic depiction of the process, as explained, would be as under: Table 4A Excavation (100) (ROM) Hematite (85) Laterite (10) Manganese (5) (sold as such) (sold as such) Fines (8.5) semi-processed (76.5) (saleable) (*) Lumps (8.5) Low-Grade (68)(sold

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)

17 (*) Part-I of the return contains the assessee’s (and its’ mines’) particulars, and is therefore not reproduced. The graphic depiction of the process, as explained, would be as under: Table 4A Excavation (100) (ROM) Hematite (85) Laterite (10) Manganese (5) (sold as such) (sold as such) Fines (8.5) semi-processed (76.5) (saleable) (*) Lumps (8.5) Low-Grade (68)(sold

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

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 12.09.2018, partly allowing the assessee's appeal disputing the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter

MADHYA PRADESH POORVE KESHTRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.LTD.,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., Income Tax, Jabalpur Circle 2(1), [Pan: Aadcm 6175E] Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sukesh Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri I.B. Khandel, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2020

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 18.02.2016, dismissing it’s appeal contesting its’ assessment under section 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for Assessment Year

M/S. R M SALES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , SATNA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 21.09.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Order passed

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

D Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (Mad)), i.e., raising objections to the issue of notice u/s. 148(1) before the AO, as was indeed the case in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), laying down the said procedure. Why, an order passed without observing the principles of natural justice, makes it, in terms

SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [in short the ‘CIT(A)] Jabalpur under Section (u/s.) 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) on 07.03.2019, wherein, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

SHRI GAURAV AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

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

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

5. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at business and residential premises of the assessee on 17.11.2015. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 15.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 90,16,190/-. The AO made the addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- on account of cash deposit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

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

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

5. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at business and residential premises of the assessee on 17.11.2015. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 15.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 90,16,190/-. The AO made the addition of Rs. 67,85,00,100/- on account of cash deposit

INDIAN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEMPTION), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: Na Indian Society Of Weed V. Commissioner Of Income Science Tax (Exemption) Icar-Dwr Campus, Bhopal Maharajpur, Adhartal, Jabalpur-482004. Pan:Aaaai7305R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 02 2026 O R D E R

D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Lucknow dated 27.09.2024. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances in the case and in law, Learned CIT (Exemption) have erred in not granting

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR BAN SHYAM BAND,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita Nos. 98 & 99/Jab/2013 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri Manoj Kumar Ben, Income Tax Officer, Shri Shyam Band, Near Vs Ward 1 (1), Lordganj Thana, Jabalpur Jabalpur Pan : Agopb 2241 C / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Sh. M.M. Nema, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:-

D E R , - PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals of the assessee, one against quantum proceedings u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 23.07.2012 and 24.07.2012 respectively for Assessment Year 2007-08. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, both these