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

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

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

2 yrs. 5days in preferring the appeal before us by the assessee. In support of explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay, an affidavit has been filed, perusal of which shows that the notice was not served upon the assessee. The same was received by the staff and not reported to the assessee. The explanation rendered

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

234E of the Income Tax, 1961 of Rs. 10,600/- for Quarter -4 of financial Year 2013-14 respectively without proper appreciating the facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld DCIT(CPC)-TDS erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Income

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

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal