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 statement\nand date of intimation are much prior to 1-6-2015:-\n(i)\nPrakash

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 on facts and in law in confirming that interest under section 220(2) is levied on a calendar month basis instead of number of days (30 or 31, as the case may be): 2.1.Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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 on facts and in law in confirming that interest under section 220(2) is levied on a calendar month basis instead of number of days (30 or 31, as the case may be): 2.1.Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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 -4 of financial Year 2013-14, respectively without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 5 That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 6

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

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

M/S AGRAWAL DRUGS & CHEMICALS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ITO-TDS -2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 (Q4-Form 24Q) Agrawal Drugs & Chemicals P. Ito, Tds-Ii, बनाम/ Ltd., Indore Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aaeca 2533 K Appellant By None Respondent By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

220(2) on TDS return filed before 1.6.2015 is unconstitutional and ultra-virus to the act.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the ITO-TDS-II, Indore passed order on 06.2.2018 u/s 200A(1) of the I.T. Act levying a penalty u/s 234E at Rs.63,000/-. Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

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

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

6 is Rs.\n1,83,26,000/-. (Copy of Bank statement and cash flow is\nattached herewith) On the basis of above facts and\ncorresponding transfer/withdrawals entries in the bank\nstatements of both accounts (Bank statement attached\nherewith) it can be clarified that all the deposited cash of\nRs.3,60,56,220/- is not my own receipts whereas I have

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 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

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

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

6: 6.0 This ground relates to addition of interest on aforesaid unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1265695/-. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has debited interest amounting to Rs. 12,65,695/- on the aforesaid unsecured loans after deduction of tax at source. 6.1 In view of the fact that the addition of unsecured loans has been deleted