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

Appeals are allowed\"

d)\nSection 200A speaks about the processing of TDS\nreturn/statements and thus the provisions starts\nonly after the filing of such TDS\nreturns/statements, whether in time or delayed,\nwhereas section 234E seeks to levy the fees for the\nperiod of delay in filing such TDS returns and\nstatements. Therefore, it may be seen that the\ncharging provisions of section 234E

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Ito, Ward-5 Collectors Bungalow, Sehore Sindhi Colony, Vs. Sehore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aappr2617B Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

272A(1)(d) for non-compliances to the notices u/s 142(1). The AO has passed penalty-order dated 25.09.2023 imposing a total penalty of Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of each of the three notices issued u/s 142(1). 3. At first, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

d) XXX\n(e)\n- fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution\nreferred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational\ninstitution referred to in sub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-\nclause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-\nclause (iiiac

RAVINDRA PATIDAR,RUNJI, GAUTAMPURA vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiravindra Patidar, Nfac, बनाम/ 112/2 Dharamath, Delhi Vs. Runji, Gutampura, Indore (Pan: Begpp5495H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone the delay. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing. Page 2 of 8 Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 2.1 That as and by way of an order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act a penalty of Rs.40,000/- for each non compliance to the notice(s) u/s 142(1) issued

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. ITA Nos. 54to56/Ind/2025 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs. NeAC

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHHAPIHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. ITA Nos. 54to56/Ind/2025 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs. NeAC

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO has erred in passing and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without affording any opportunity of being heard against the principles of natural justice. ITA Nos. 54to56/Ind/2025 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs. NeAC

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

272A(1)(d) of the\nAct was initiated and show cause notice u/s 274\nr.w.s.272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the\nassessee on 20/09/2019 and fixing the hearing on\n24/09/2019. But on this date none appeared nor any\nwritten submission filed by the assessee. The assessee\nfailed to give any explanation about the nature

UJJAIN SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Ujjain Dugdh Sangh (Sah) Dcit/Acit-1(1) Maryadit, Ujjain 1 Dairy Plant, Maxi Road, बनाम/ Naulakha Bid, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaau0051C Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha, Shri Vaibhav Siroliya & Shri V.K. Ladha, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

272A(1)(d) being the penalty order was passed by the DCIT without approval of Jt. Commissioner as envisaged in section 274(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That no proper opportunity was allowed to the appellant to prove his case. 4. The appellant prays to alter, amend, add or delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Heard