AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing

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

68 [Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. 275, 69[(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- 70 in a case where the he relevant assessment or other order is the [(a) subject-matter of an appeal to the 71[] 71 [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or to the] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 24672 [or section

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. 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

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

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

sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Given the clear law, the issue arising to our mind is principally one of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any settlement has been, as claimed, arrived at between the parties, much less during the current year, i.e., on the first day of the accounting year, on which the debit notes were

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

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

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit