BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

220(2) of the Act also do not\nsurvive.'\n21. We find, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the following\ndecisions also have held that no fee can be levied u/s 234E in\nterms of section 200A where the date of filing of TDS

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS) under section 154/201(1)/201(1A), levying interest under section 220(2). 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS) under section 154/201(1)/201(1A), levying interest under section 220(2). 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 12,190/- for Quarter

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

220\n(Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n[28-07-2025]\nITA No. 289/AHD/2025\n2\nRam Charan Gupta vs.\nITO, Jaipur\nITA No. 408/JPR/2022\n3\nNeelam Gupta vs.\nAddl. JCIT (SMC)\nITA No. 81/DEL/2025\n4\nShri Mangla Ram\nNimbark vs. ITO, Ajmer\nITA No. 542/JPR/2023\n5\nRam Dev Daiya vs.\nITO, Jaipur (SMC)\nITA\nNo.\n1280/JPR/2025\n2020-21,\nPB 60-64\n2020

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed and\n\"impugned order” is set aside

Section 44AB\nduring the financial year 2014-15 which is immediately\npreceding the financial year 2015-16. Hence the question of\ncertificate in respect of TDS deducted in commission does\nnot arise.\n2.17 That it is recorded in the assessment order as under: -\nTo verify the claim of the assessee in support of\nassessee's reply regarding Non-deduction

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS at the time of Registry in the name of M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd only. The same is claimed by M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd in its Income Tax Return. Thus, on the excess amount of Rs. 32,55,000/- [ Rs. 1,30,20,000 - Rs. 97,65,000] , M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd was liable to pay Income

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT v. Metachem Industries as reported in [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(Mag.) 16. In view of the above discussion in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the addition

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

220 ITR 226 (Raj.) has considered the aspect of initiation of penalty proceedings as under:- "We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220 ITR 226 (Raj.) has considered the aspect of initiation of penalty proceedings as under:- "We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220 ITR 226 (Raj.) has considered the aspect of initiation of penalty proceedings as under:- "We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220(2) becomes infructuous. ITANo.8/Ind/2023 for A.Y.2012-13 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under: “1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,04,400/- on account of disallowance of interest free advances, without considering

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220(2) becomes infructuous. ITANo.8/Ind/2023 for A.Y.2012-13 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under: “1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,04,400/- on account of disallowance of interest free advances, without considering

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220(2) becomes infructuous. ITANo.8/Ind/2023 for A.Y.2012-13 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under: “1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,04,400/- on account of disallowance of interest free advances, without considering

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220(2) becomes infructuous. ITANo.8/Ind/2023 for A.Y.2012-13 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under: “1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,04,400/- on account of disallowance of interest free advances, without considering

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

220(2) becomes infructuous. ITANo.8/Ind/2023 for A.Y.2012-13 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under: “1.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,04,400/- on account of disallowance of interest free advances, without considering

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that