DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

5 read with section 9 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed copy of the Contract Agreement and submitted that the Agreement only provides for supervision services for installations of plant and machinery in India by the Italian 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014 DCIT vs Orient Paper Mills company, that too, free

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

5 read with section 9 of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed copy of the Contract Agreement and submitted that the Agreement only provides for supervision services for installations of plant and machinery in India by the Italian 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.34 & 35/Jab/2014 DCIT vs Orient Paper Mills company, that too, free

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

5. The issue pertains to computation of short term capital gain /loss incurred by the assessee. The AO is directed to re - compute the short term capital loss take into consideration the cost of acquisition, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital asset and sale price in accordance to the provision of Section

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

price (through mutual consent) to Rs. 5 lacs per acre (for the entire land). The premise of the assessee’s case is of he being bound by the court order. The argument may hold only where the High Court had opined on the fair market value of the subject land, which is the subject matter of s. 50C. The suit

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

price (through mutual consent) to Rs. 5 lacs per acre (for the entire land). The premise of the assessee’s case is of he being bound by the court order. The argument may hold only where the High Court had opined on the fair market value of the subject land, which is the subject matter of s. 50C. The suit

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

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

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 4.2 We may begin by delineating the case of either side before us. The Revenue

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price fluctuate erratically and hence the need of fund is uncertain and needs to carry huge funds is essential in the interest of business. In the same manner Tendu Patta is another major raw material which is being auctioned by the Government only. Government has introduced Tender system and the payment policy are subject to sudden changes which also supports

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price fluctuate erratically and hence the need of fund is uncertain and needs to carry huge funds is essential in the interest of business. In the same manner Tendu Patta is another major raw material which is being auctioned by the Government only. Government has introduced Tender system and the payment policy are subject to sudden changes which also supports

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price fluctuate erratically and hence the need of fund is uncertain and needs to carry huge funds is essential in the interest of business. In the same manner Tendu Patta is another major raw material which is being auctioned by the Government only. Government has introduced Tender system and the payment policy are subject to sudden changes which also supports

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MAYDT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Sarabjeet Singh Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mokha, 1112, Jabalpur. Pachpedi, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpm8245F Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

transfer found in the paper seized during the course of search, total valuation was noted as Rs.6.25 crores. The AO accordingly, made addition in the hands of the assessee in proportion to 37.5% of the shares out of Rs. 6.25 crores which was worked out to Rs.2.34 crores. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested that addition for the entire amount

ANURODH SAHU,JABALPUR vs. ITO (IT AND TP), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Anurodh Sahu, Vs. Ito (Ft & Tp), 3173, Tulsi Nagar Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Pan: Bktps9371L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (It & Tp), Bhopal At Jabalpur Dated 16.01.2024 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Assessment Order Issued By The Learned Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Directions Of Drp Is Unjustified & Base Less On The Basis Of Information & Documents Submitted. 2. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Never Countered Or Produced Before The Assessee The Source Of Information/ Documents On Basis Of Which The Said Addition Appealed Against Is Made During Whole Assessment Proceedings. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Never Questioned The Relevant Sources Of Income Produced & Submitted By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings & Brought Nothing On Record To Prove Or Justify The Assessee Having Some Other Source Or Hidden Source Of Income. 4. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Made The Additions On The Basis Of Incomplete Information Having No Evidence & Based On Surmises On The Directions Given By Drp.

5. That the direction given by DRP has not appreciated the replies, proofs and documents submitted by the assessee and ignored it without any justification solely based on information provided by the Assessing Officer having no justified source and never presented before the assessee. 6. That the Kionex App from which the transaction was done has been closed

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. has been consistently held to be business expenditure by the coordinate Bench in the assessee's own business in the past. Since financial year 1993-94 the assessee has been taking loans from the directors and shareholders and as on 31.3.2007 total unsecured loan

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. has been consistently held to be business expenditure by the coordinate Bench in the assessee's own business in the past. Since financial year 1993-94 the assessee has been taking loans from the directors and shareholders and as on 31.3.2007 total unsecured loan

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