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

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

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

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

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

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

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

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

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 2025/1071687490(1) dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 2025/1071687490(1) dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 2025/1071687490(1) dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

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

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

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.264/Ind/2018: GROUND I: LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 AMOUNTING TO Rs.6,71,51,801/-: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed

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

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.264/Ind/2018: GROUND I: LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 AMOUNTING TO Rs.6,71,51,801/-: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed

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

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

5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed based on the expertise of Andritz Austria. However, in certain cases, looking at the complexities of the project involved it becomes imperative

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

5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed based on the expertise of Andritz Austria. However, in certain cases, looking at the complexities of the project involved it becomes imperative

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

5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed based on the expertise of Andritz Austria. However, in certain cases, looking at the complexities of the project involved it becomes imperative

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

5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed based on the expertise of Andritz Austria. However, in certain cases, looking at the complexities of the project involved it becomes imperative