SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

220(2) of the Act also do not survive.' 21. We find, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the following decisions also have held that no fee can be levied u/s 234E in terms of section 200A where the date of filing of TDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

220/-. The AO processed assessee’s return through intimation dated 29.04.2019 u/s 143(1) determining total income at Rs. 21,72,100/-, after making an upward adjustment of Rs. 10,19,880/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution received by assessee towards Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI

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. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

220 Taxman 3 (Mag) (Guj.) and CIT v. Umang Hiralal Thakkar [2014] 42 Laxmann.com 194/226 Taxman 28 (Mag.) (Guj) and therefore this court is are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct. Issue decided in favour of assesssee. 34. Further the Hon,ble High Court of Gujarat

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