ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SANDESH KUMAR JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, i.e., from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. 2 | P a g e Asst

DEVENRA KUMAR GUPTA,REWA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (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: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

section 68 and mechanical order was passed which is bad in law . Page 2 of 6 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the action of AO without appreciating the fact that appellant have duly filed the figures of earlier year also and further there was sufficient cash balance

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

69,43,790/ - made on 2 CO No. 17/JAB/2019 Deepak Jaiswal account of unexplained credit under section 68 by accepting

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:-

Section 69 of the Act, made addition of entire cash deposits of Rs.76,48,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who, after considering the submissions of the assessee, sustained the addition to the extent of peak credit, i.e. Rs.8,57,521/- vide order dated 23.07.2012 and, accordingly

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

Section 275 is reproduced as below for a ready reference- 68 [Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. 275, 69

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 69C of the Act. He pointed out that AO in her assessment order dated 30.12.2019 had disallowed Rs.2,12,82,278/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of bogus sales cash during the month of October, 2016 but 7 AY 2017-18 M/s Ambajee jewellers Jabalpur failed to disallow the remaining amount of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI ALOK RAJPUT, CHHINDWARA

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO, are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 13/12/2017) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) vide order dated 28/3/2019. The assessee’s Cross Objection (CO) is supportive. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partner, along with his mother, Vinesh Rajput

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

section 69A do not apply. The returned income may please be considered as disclosed by the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above ground the return income disclosed by assessee are mainly from interest income. This amount has already been considered by the AO while making addition for entire deposits in bank account. Thus the same is double addition

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

section 263 assessment order. Though a matter subsequent, with which we are not really concerned, particularly as it is the absence of proper inquiry per se that makes an order erroneous, but as pointed out herein, there is nothing to show lack of application of mind by the AO, with in fact most of the queries being not related

SHRI PRINCE RAI,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

section 132 of the Act, still the material obtained thereby is liable to be used subject to law before the Income- tax authorities against the person from whose custody it is seized and, therefore, no writ of prohibition in restraint for such use can be granted. This stands reiterated by it in Dr. Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Director