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

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

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

delay was condoned.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "69", "147", "246A", "249(2)", "249(3)", "274(2)" ], "issues

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the\n“impugned order\" had dismissed the first appeal of the\nassessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The\ncore grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal\nwere as under:-\n“6. In the instant case, order u/s 154 of the Act was passed

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay. While acknowledging that the filing of Form 10IC is mandatory, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's bonafide attempt and directed the assessee to file the form within one month, with the CPC opening the window for this purpose.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "253", "250", "246A

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay could not be condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "253", "143(3)", "270A", "274", "270AA", "270AA(1)", "270AA(2)", "156", "246A

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "249(2)", "246A", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "43B", "29" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condonation

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal found the \"impugned order\" to be not meritorious and set it aside. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "250", "147", "144", "144B", "68", "148", "142(1)", "246A

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

1)\nThe appellant\n(2)\nThe respondent\n(3)\nCIT\n(4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee is aggrieved by an order that treated cash deposits of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- as unexplained income under Section

SANTOSH CHATURVEDI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "250", "246A", "249(2)", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "43B", "29" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under: “5.7 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay, where

MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

condonation of delay on merits and then decide the appeal.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "147", "144/144B", "148", "142(1)", "246A

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons specified therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:- Page 2 of 13 Sitaram Muchhala ITA No. 661/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 “5.1 During the course of appeal proceedings

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair