EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO.2 ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (TDS) , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Executive Engineer, Dy. Cit (Tds), Construction, Bhopal Division No.2, बनाम/ E-5, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bplo 00510 G Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and proceeded for hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that a TDS survey was conducted by income-tax authorities in the premise of assessee on 18.12.2015 pursuant to which notices were issued to assessee and ultimately an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 15.02.2021 was passed

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

1 of 6 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal ITA No. 532/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 287 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

delays of 610 days, 607 days and 583 days respectively. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation-applications in all three matters supported by affidavits and prays for condonation. The applications filed in all three cases are similarly worded and we re-produce one of the applications: Page 2 of 6 Union Bank of India RGPV

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed by the appellant was not regular return. The revised return has been regularized vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 17.01.2008. Therefore, from the date of filing of the revised return till the date of condonation the return remained as non est. The revised return came

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

201(1) of the Act for the default on the part of the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of payment made to BDA for the execution of the work through tendering process and finally the payment made to the contractor after deduction of TDS by the BDA. The assessee has also filed the certificate issued

MALWA PATIDAR SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI ,HATPIPLIYA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimalwa Patidar Samaj Shiksha Adit, Cpc Samiti Bangaluru Hatpiplya Tehsil Bagli Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam4373Q Assessee By Mrs. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2024

condonation of delay in filing for filing the form 10BB u/s 119(2)(b) before the competent authority as specified by the CBDT in Circular no.15/2022 dated 19.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was claimed by the assesse only after the assesse was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) vide order

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

condone the delay and proceed for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee submitted return of income of relevant AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 which was subjected to scrutiny assessment. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) at the returned income. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed

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

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

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

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

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

section, but if issued, then it is illegal. Hence liable to be cancelled. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. 9. In Ground No. 1, the assessee claims that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

condonation of delay in filing first-appeal before Ld. CIT(A). We accept assessee’s submissions and reverse the decision of dismissal taken by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee succeeds in this ground. Ground No. 2 to 3: 8. The exact controversy involved in these grounds is whether or not the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed

ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE vs. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Cpc, Bengaluru Uddeshiya Shiksha Avm Sarvajanik Nyas, बनाम/ 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Vs. Pipliyahana Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaetr9004R Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” (viii

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. That the delay in filing of Appeal be kindly condoned. 3. That the order of the learned lower authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 4. That the learned