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

Appeals are allowed\"

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E\nis cancelled.\n8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s\n234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s\n201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s\n201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be \"assessee in\ndefault

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay in\nfiling the appeal in the interest of justice.\nUnion Bank of India RGPV-Bhopal\nITA No. 838, 839 & 840/Ind/2024\nAYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2018-19\n4. On merit, Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission. He\ninvited our attention to following Provisos to section 201(1)/201(1A) of\nIncome

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay in\nfiling the appeal in the interest of justice.\nBhopal\nDate:\nUNION BANK OF INDIA Applicant\nUnion Bank of India RGPV-Bhopal\nITA No. 838, 839 & 840/Ind/2024\nAYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2018-19\n4. On merit, Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission. He\ninvited our attention to following Provisos to section 201(1)/201

MAHATMA GANDHI STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPEMENT,ADHARTAL vs. ACIT TDS, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

3)\n(4)\n(5)\n(6)\n\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\n\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 151 days due to unavoidable circumstances. The case concerns the incorrect application of Section 194J instead

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

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 assessment-order dated 11.12.2017 u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the PCIT, Ujjain examined

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

ITO(EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. AROGYA SEVA MANDAL, BURHANPUR MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is dismissed

3. From the above facts and circumstances, the intention of the\nappellant is clear in filing the return and audit reports as per the due\ndates. Filing the audit report with a delay of 6 days a curable defect.\nThe intention of the Department is to get the compliance of the\nappellant to the provisions of Act and see that

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

201 days from date of passing of impugned assessment order. Consequently delay of 171 days in filing appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has recorded that “the appellant in Form No. 35 has submitted reason for delay in filing appeal is reproduced as under”:- "The Appellant is a person with meagre resources and is not aware

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 BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned the delay and proceeded for hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee submitted return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 5,41,76,780/-. The Ld. AO selected case for scrutiny, issued statutory A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 15 notices and finally completed assessment by passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the total

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condone the delay in filing appeal. 11. The appellant prays to delete the demand of tax and interest or to remand the case in the interest of justice.” 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee acts as a Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and oversees the welfare programme undertaken by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

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

condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ld. AR pointed out that there was a delay of about 5½ months in filing first-appeal. Ld. AR submitted that the order appealed against before Ld. CIT(A) was received by some clerical staff who omitted to report

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

condoning delay in filing first-appeal before him. Referring to Para No. 4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ld. AR pointed out that there was a delay of about 5½ months in filing first-appeal. Ld. AR submitted that the order appealed against before Ld. CIT(A) was received by some clerical staff who omitted to report