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.

68,21,182/- to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A as unexplained money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is opposed

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

3. That, there was sufficient reasons due to which the assessee could not appear before the first appellant authority before passing the order dated 11.09.2024. 4 That, the Ld. First appellate authority is totally unjustified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8153072/- on account of additions made under various heads. Page 2 of 8 5 Under the facts and circumstances

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

3) of section ~ is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India.] The above provision clearly shows that the dealer would become liable to make Sales-tax payment the moment he effects the sales in the course of an inter-State trade or commerce. This shows that the liability to make

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

68,642. The assessee’s stand is that the same is a perquisite in the hands of the employees, forming part of their salary income and, therefore, excluded under FBT (s.115WB(3)). Tax on the said perquisite, however, had not been deducted at source as its’ employees had contested the same before the Hon’ble High Court, which matter

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

20,137/made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by observing that the assessee has established the genuinity of the share transaction and established the identity and creditworthiness aspects as well through supporting documents without appreciating the facts and findings well elaborated by the Assessing Officer that the report

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

3. Apropos ground No.1 relating to alleged addition of Rs.27 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though evidences were filed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors, but during the cross-examination the alleged cash creditors did not accept to have provided loans. On the other

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

section 68 by accepting the additional evidences which was never confronted to AO for cross examination? 3. Any other ground as may be adduced at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) grossly

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

SHAILESH JAISWAL,,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, - KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 in terms of trite law, toward which we may cite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju

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

20 05 2025 Date of pronouncement: 30 06 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 12.02.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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)

20,869 of the Act without proper A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2016-17 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

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)

20,869 of the Act without proper A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2016-17 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

PAYAL SUKHRAMANI,SATNA vs. ITO WARD-2 , SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.128/3, First Floor, Satna Master Plan, Near Overbridge, Satna, Madhya Pradesh-485001 Pan:Bwdps3622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 3.04.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward-2, Stana Dated 9.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit (A) Order Is Bad In Law, Facts Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That The Ld Cit Appeals Failed To Appreciate That The Sale Of Shares Was For A Consideration Of Rs 6,15,550 Whereas Addition Made For Rs 24,25,650/- By Mistake. The Assessee Made Submission Against Ground No.2 Regarding Clerical Mistake & Also Informed For Rectification Application Filed On Filed Has Been Rejected. 3. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining Addition For Rs 24,25,650 U/S 68 Against Sale Of Shares Claimed As Exmpet U/S 10(38). 4. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Against Addition Made U/S 68 For Ay 2012-13. 5. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 1,23,263/- Against Alleged Commission Payment For Transaction In Shares. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani

3. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining addition for Rs 24,25,650 u/s 68 against sale of shares claimed as exmpet u/s 10(38). 4. That The Ld CIT Appeals erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE against addition made u/s 68 for AY 2012-13. 5. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining

M/S NARSINGH EXTRACTION & ALLIED PRODUCTS P. LTD,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Narsingh Extraction & Vs Asst.Cit, Allied Products P.Ltd., Circle-2(1), 389, Gupteshwar Ward, Jabalpur Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn2387H Assessee By Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

68 of the Act. 5. That the applicant itself has disallowed the amount u/s 43B of the current year and claimed the amount paid during the year as deduction, hence the ld AO was not justified in adding Rs. 3,71,548/- to the income of the appellant by applying the provision of section

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

68 ITR 240, and CIT v Bakelal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 and hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT v Moped and Machines 2006] 281 ITR 52 and hon ble ITAT Jabalpur Bench decision in the case of ACIT v Thermoflics India [1997] 60 ITD 554 the ld CIT(A) was fully justified

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

68,300/- for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further the Society has revised its return of income in ITR-5 for the A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income Rs, 48,300/- in status AOP/BOl. In the revised ITR filed total receipts of Rs. 2,46,48,972/- were shown in Schedule OS Income from other sources (Col.1(9)) and expenses/deductions

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

3. Costs of shop, locker and stair on first floor had already been built up as evident from the registry. 4. Cost of shop w/c and stairs of second floor had been built up as evident from registry. 8 AY 2013-14 Shri Subhash Kumar Aahi 5. Cost of shop of third floor had already been built up as evident

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