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

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", "115BAA", "139(1)", "119(2)(b

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter\nissued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned\npenalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on\nPage 4 of 22\n06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before Ld. CIT(A) who by the\n\"impugned order” has dismissed the appeal

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

b) of the Income tax\nAct, 1961 for representing the case. However, in response\nthe assessee did not furnish any reply. In view of the\nnoncompliance to the notice issued on the part of the\nassessee, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on\nthe information available with the Department, passed\nOrder under section 148A(d) of the Income

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

b) as narrated in preceding paragraphs which Page 3 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 leads to under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. 9. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the assessee has under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof. Hence, the assessee is liable

MAMTA UPPADHYAY,SEHORE vs. ITO SEHORE, SEHORE

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimamta Uppadhyay, Ito Sehore बनाम/ 1 Np Uppadhyay Nehru Vs. Colony Station Road 466001 Madhya Pradesh India, Sehore (Pan:Acjpu1481E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 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 and reasons stated therein. The core ground and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:- “5.0 I have considered the penalty order and the appeal documents filed by the assessee

RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA,PACHORE RAJGARH vs. ITO RAJGARH, RAJGARJ MP

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condone the delay and\nappeal is admitted.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that in so far as merit of the\ncase is concerned there is an addition of Rs.36,64,145/- in the\n"impugned assessment order” dated 28.03.2016. The assessee\nis a distributor of Bharti Airtel. The Ld. AR has placed on record\nof this tribunal a paper

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 246A was filed on 21.09.2023 and total number of delay is 2066 days. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the first appeal as and by way of the \"impugned order” did not condone the delay in filing the first appeal under the Act and dismissed the appeal u/s 249(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has not filed any documents to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transactions made by him during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. Thus, I have no alternative but to complete the exparte assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.7 The Ld. A.O in the assessment

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

b), the same allowable, Since gratuity fund set up by the company for the employees was not approved by competent authority and assessee got approval w.e.f. 01.04.2007, it is not a approved gratuity fund. Therefore claim of assessee u/s 40A(7), for gratuity is not allowable. It is also not allowable as per u/s 40A(9) also which is reproduced

SATISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

B Apollo Tower, बनाम/ 2 M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABMPC4980E Assessee by S/Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.04. 2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee before this Tribunal

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

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- 25/1069365385(1) dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation