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

2,50,047 (84,20,852 - 81,70,805). The difference (Rs.2.50 lacs), though nominal, which is only incidentally so, validates the invocation of s.263. The assessee’s consent is again only incidental as the cost adopted by him was neither enquired into in assessment nor, consequently, substantiated. The consent by the assessee was itself given in the s.263 proceeding

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

2 Rashmeet Singh Malhotara 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) erred and is not justified In confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs.3,79,043/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The same may be deleted in toto in the interest

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

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