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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 194J on the payment of Rs. 29,500/- made to 3 different parties. Hence, the assessee gets the relief of Rs.29,500/-. (ii) As regard the payment of Rs. 50,000/- made to Shri V Ravindra Prasad Advocate, the assessee submitted that V. Ravendra Prasad is a regular assessee of income and has included the payment received from

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

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

254(2) of the Act, recalled by the Tribunal vide it’s order dated 29/04/2022 upon finding it’s earlier adjudication as grossly and gravely mistaken, for being decided afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. There has, however, been no representation by or on behalf of the assessee in the ensuing proceedings before the Tribunal on each