INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

143(3) on 28/12/2011 is illegal and bad in law and hence deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)- erred and is totally unjustified in holding that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK SINGH BANAFER, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

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

143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 vide order dated 18/12/2018. 2.1 The facts of the case, insofar as are relevant, are that the assessee sold during the relevant year 1.61 acres of his inherited land at Swami Vivekanand Ward 21 (near Vijay Nagar), Jabalpur

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

transfer is within the same city. In our clear view though, this aspect, i.e., the jurisdiction of the authority to act as the AO in a given case cannot be questioned in the appellate proceedings under the Act in view of the clear mandate of law per sec. 124, requiring all such issues to be decided through the administrative route

SHRI GOVIND RATHI, PROP. GOVIND DALL MILL,HOSHANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 13/2/2015. 2.1 The appeal raises two issues, which shall be taken up in seriatim. The first issue is in respect of two additions for Rs.4.00 lacs and Rs.1.50 lacs, i.e., at an aggregate of Rs.5.50 lacs

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for AY 2016-17 on 31.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 25.12.2019 respectively. In both the assessments, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) has made addition for disallowance of the excess interest paid to Directors and relatives of directors. In AY 2016-17, addition of Rs.11

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for AY 2016-17 on 31.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 25.12.2019 respectively. In both the assessments, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) has made addition for disallowance of the excess interest paid to Directors and relatives of directors. In AY 2016-17, addition of Rs.11

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