M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 4. The limitation for filing the appeal in the present case was expired in the month of February, 2022 and the assessee has filed the present appeal on 25th May, 2022 but within the period of 90 as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being extension of limitation for the cases where

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01- 04-2021. 2 Praveen Madhukarrao Satwasker ITA No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01- 04-2021. 2 Praveen Madhukarrao Satwasker ITA No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years

ROSHAN HOSPITAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Roshan Hospital, Dcit/Acit, 7-A-B, Govind Garden, 5(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal-462023 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.04.2023

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, here it is contended that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that

MAKSON HEALTH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income

MAKSON HEALH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACIT1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

X-Ray\nReport, receipts and MRI\nFindings in month of Nov\n17 enclosed. [PB 23-156]\nAll recovery notices are\nenclosed. [PB 157]\nMarch 2021\nIn the year 2021, the assessee was\ninvolved in pending VAT appellate\nproceedings for AY 2016-17.\nCopy of the proceedings is\nenclosed. [PB 158-160]\nNov 2022\nAssessee has filed application before\nthe

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

X-Ray\nReport, receipts and MRI\nFindings in month of Nov\n17 enclosed. [PB 23-156]\nFeb 2019 onwards During the period multiple recovery\nactions were initiated by various\ndepartments including attachment of\nbank accounts. Bank initiated auction\nof house. Appellant who was trying to\nget his house released. This period\nwas also the period of Covid-19 since\nMarch

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

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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

X 44 days = 8,800/- restricted to amount of TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] were levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeals and deleted

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

X-Ray\nReport, receipts and MRI\nFindings in month of Nov\n17 enclosed. [PB 23-156]\nFeb 2019 onwards During the period multiple recovery\nactions were initiated by various\ndepartments including attachment of\nbank accounts. Bank initiated auction\nof house. Appellant who was trying to\nget his house released. This period\nwas also the period of Covid-19 since\nMarch

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

X-Ray\nReport, receipts and MRI\nFindings in month of Nov\n17 enclosed. [PB 23-156]\nTill Jan 2018\nHe was again on Bed rest as the Spine\ntrouble was critical and bed rest was\nthe only prescription\nFeb 2019 onwards During the period multiple recovery\nactions were initiated by various\ndepartments including attachment of\nbank accounts. Bank initiated auction

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,KHARGONE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

24)(x) on account of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) collected by assessee but not deposited upto the due date under P.F. law. Ld. AR submitted that the factual position that for the month of May, 2021, the assessee has deposited employees’ contributions to P.F. on 16.06.2021 whereas the due date was 15.06.2021, therefore the payment was delayed

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

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. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income