Search: section 68

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

undisclosed income as per the slab rates and without determining such income as the income referred to in Sections 68

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

ITA 36/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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.

For Appellant: Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv &For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai.CIT-DR

Section 10Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

undisclosed income was surrendered under section 68 on account of construction expenses on which tax has been paid by the assessee

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

ITA 39/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

section 127 of the Act is bad in law as no reason were recorded and no opportunity of being heard was given and no facts that Principal CIT of Raipur and Principal CIT Jabalpur were in agreement was recorded. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.12,96,390 on account

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

ITA 37/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

section 127 of the Act is bad in law as no reason were recorded and no opportunity of being heard was given and no facts that Principal CIT of Raipur and Principal CIT Jabalpur were in agreement was recorded. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.12,96,390 on account

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

ITA 133/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 292BSection 43C

undisclosed income in the statement recorded during the course of survey. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on presumption and when the assessee could not furnish detailed and credible evidences during the course of assessment. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact

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

ITA 41/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 68Section 69Section 69B

68, 69 thro‟ 69D, the amount under reference may not stand to be assessed as income and, in any case, as the income of the relevant year. The non-detection of any income; rather, source of income, in the documents found and impounded during survey, on which much store was placed by Shri Bardia during hearing, rather, favours the Revenue

SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 24/JAB/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1

Section 143(3)Section 250

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Satna, was illegal and bad in law. 3. That the additions so made and confirmed by CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 4. That

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

ITA 76/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 68

Undisclosed sales-Entire sale proceeds of the assessee cannot be added to his income Net profit rate has to be applied—CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2004) 186 CTR (MP) 419 : (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) followed " In the case of M/s Ramesh Chand Ravindra Kumar Rai v ITO, (2010)14 ITJ 34 the Hon'ble ITAT Jabalpur bench

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

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

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

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 143(3)Section 250(6)

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 of Enforcement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

68 and imposed penalty under Sections 271Dand 271E. The tribunal deleted penalty imposed by AO. The High Court held that loans taken were genuine and same was for business Jammu Beg. exigency. It was not case of undisclosed income

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

ITA 52/JAB/2018[2015-16 (Quarter: 2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020

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)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

income from tax was the excess of the sale value over cost. Applying the obtaining gross profit rate (50.69%) on the said out-of-books sales, i.e., Rs. 662.48 lacs (23,660 MT x Rs. 2800 pmt), he, accordingly confirmed the addition for ₹. 335.81 lakhs, deleting the balance addition of Rs. 2646.04 lacs (Rs. 2981.85 lacs – Rs. 335.81 lacs). Aggrieved

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

ITA 77/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

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)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

income from tax was the excess of the sale value over cost. Applying the obtaining gross profit rate (50.69%) on the said out-of-books sales, i.e., Rs. 662.48 lacs (23,660 MT x Rs. 2800 pmt), he, accordingly confirmed the addition for ₹. 335.81 lakhs, deleting the balance addition of Rs. 2646.04 lacs (Rs. 2981.85 lacs – Rs. 335.81 lacs). Aggrieved

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

ITA 78/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

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)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

income from tax was the excess of the sale value over cost. Applying the obtaining gross profit rate (50.69%) on the said out-of-books sales, i.e., Rs. 662.48 lacs (23,660 MT x Rs. 2800 pmt), he, accordingly confirmed the addition for ₹. 335.81 lakhs, deleting the balance addition of Rs. 2646.04 lacs (Rs. 2981.85 lacs – Rs. 335.81 lacs). Aggrieved

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

ITA 51/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

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)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

income from tax was the excess of the sale value over cost. Applying the obtaining gross profit rate (50.69%) on the said out-of-books sales, i.e., Rs. 662.48 lacs (23,660 MT x Rs. 2800 pmt), he, accordingly confirmed the addition for ₹. 335.81 lakhs, deleting the balance addition of Rs. 2646.04 lacs (Rs. 2981.85 lacs – Rs. 335.81 lacs). Aggrieved

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

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

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

68,567/-, vehicle expense of Rs. 39,17,918/- and office expense of Rs. 8,30,030/-. Out of these expenses, the auditor has treated expenses to the extent of Rs.7,30,00/- as personal expense and has disallowed the same while working out taxable income. The AO was of the opinion that 25% of the expenses debited under these