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

Appeals are allowed

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

253. The limitation for the cases falling under this category, is two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, were completed; or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the appellate authority was received

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISH,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS- 2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

M/S. ABHINAV ENTERPRISES,INDORE vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

253(5) or decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the situation, we are inclined to accept the present appeal as having been filed in time and we accept so. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and proceeded for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DEWAS vs. ITO DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ito 105, Agra Mumbai Road, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abopa3336J Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,60,670/- which was assessed by AO through

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 M. P. Ghaziabad Principal Kendriya Vidyalay बनाम/ Moddle Scool Campus Vs. Barwani M.P. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) TAN: BPLK02605B Assessee by Shri Jahangir Khan, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee Under Section 253

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income

AMEY JAIN,INDORE vs. OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2019-20 Amey Jain, Ito 1(1), 127, Anurag Nagar Bh Indore Press Complex, बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqbpj1217D Assessee By Shri Harsh Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. Ld. AR for assessee explained following facts of case: (i) The assessee-individual is an NRI. (ii) On 09.05.2018, the assessee purchased a property for Rs. 53,43,000/- from R.R. Jain Infra (PAN: AAQFR9972C

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

253 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to pass such orders on such an appeal as it thinks fit. Sub section (4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding