SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

68 on account of various head on which tax was paid at normal income instead of provisions of section 115BBE, which was not levied. Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 2.1 On going through the records, it has been noted that in the item. number 5f of Schedule A- Ol of ITR there was an amount of Rs.24

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

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 14A. He, therefore, computed the value of the disallowance in Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 35,68

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

Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay service tax before actual receipt of the funds in the account of the assessee. Hence, the liability to pay service tax into the treasury will arise only upon the assessee receiving the funds and not otherwise. A SLP filed by department against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction of Rs.6,35

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction of Rs.6,35

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)

35,681.6 MT (by IBM), which quantity is not in dispute, would stand to be categorized as finished iron ore, as done by IBM (& adopted by the Revenue), considering that the grade thereof varies between 50.12% to 54.32% (refer para 2), which agrees with the consideration by the assessee of that with grade below 50% as subgrade, coupled with

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)

35,681.6 MT (by IBM), which quantity is not in dispute, would stand to be categorized as finished iron ore, as done by IBM (& adopted by the Revenue), considering that the grade thereof varies between 50.12% to 54.32% (refer para 2), which agrees with the consideration by the assessee of that with grade below 50% as subgrade, coupled with

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)

35,681.6 MT (by IBM), which quantity is not in dispute, would stand to be categorized as finished iron ore, as done by IBM (& adopted by the Revenue), considering that the grade thereof varies between 50.12% to 54.32% (refer para 2), which agrees with the consideration by the assessee of that with grade below 50% as subgrade, coupled with

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)

35,681.6 MT (by IBM), which quantity is not in dispute, would stand to be categorized as finished iron ore, as done by IBM (& adopted by the Revenue), considering that the grade thereof varies between 50.12% to 54.32% (refer para 2), which agrees with the consideration by the assessee of that with grade below 50% as subgrade, coupled with

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

section 144 and further erred in mentioning that assessee has produced partial purchase bills only during assessment proceeding 12. The revision order dated 19/01/2022 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 13. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that

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. 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

section 132(4) recorded on 17.11.2015, that out of the cash of Rs.16,96,390 an amount of Rs.4,00,000 belongs 10 Mr. Jitendra Gangwani. The statement of Shri Jitendra Gangwani was recorded on 17.11.2015. He admitted that this money pertains to him. After verification from Mr. Jitendra Gangwani, the authorized officer returned the amount of Rs.4

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

section 132(4) recorded on 17.11.2015, that out of the cash of Rs.16,96,390 an amount of Rs.4,00,000 belongs 10 Mr. Jitendra Gangwani. The statement of Shri Jitendra Gangwani was recorded on 17.11.2015. He admitted that this money pertains to him. After verification from Mr. Jitendra Gangwani, the authorized officer returned the amount of Rs.4

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

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

35 nor as reported on e-portal of Income Tax. The order passed by CIT (A) is against natural justice. The appeal order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre may please be quashed and set aside to the file of CIT Appeal 2. Without prejudice to the above ground in the present case the assessment order was also passed