ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

192-194]\nThe appellant was undergoing genuine hardship due to coercive bank recovery\nproceedings against his residential house. From November 2022 onwards, the appellant\nwas compelled to litigate before the Hon'ble DRT, including filing appeal, intervention\nproceedings through his aged mother, and subsequent submissions, all aimed at\npreventing auction of the property. The appellant remained continuously engaged\nmedical reasons

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

192-194]\nThe appellant was undergoing genuine hardship due to coercive bank recovery\nproceedings against his residential house. From November 2022 onwards, the appellant\nwas compelled to litigate before the Hon'ble DRT, including filing appeal, intervention\nproceedings through his aged mother, and subsequent submissions, all aimed at\npreventing auction of the property. The appellant remained continuously engaged\nmedical reasons

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

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

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

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires." 14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is condoned. ITA Nos .59/Ind/2021 & 60/Ind/2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The issue relates to addition under Section 234E of the Act which has stated to be covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case

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

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

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

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

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

Appeals are allowed\"

192(SC). The relevant findings of the\nTribunal are as under:-\n11. \"We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals is\nagainst levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act\nwhile issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act, in the\nfirst bunch of appeals

RAHUL SHARMA ,INDORE vs. DCIT /CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 3. The addition of Rs. 5,36,494/- on account of delayed payment to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund ( PF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is under challenge before us. 4. The addition has been made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

192\n27,19,994\nHarda Nagar Bal Vikash Samiti (Society)\n-\n(15,17,865)\nTotal\n2,36,39,736\n42,46,993\nSince the annual receipts exceeded the eligibility limit, the assessee ceased to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) from AY 2017-18. Therefore, the assessee filed an application to CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

delay in present appeal is condoned. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a co-operative bank. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,90,950/- and subsequently filed a revised return on 15.12.2014 declaring a total income

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. It is to be mentioned here that the appellant did not submit any statement of facts and he mentioned in the appeal memo that the statement of fact will be submitted at the time of hearing. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section