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

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS returns on flat rates. The absence of any\nprovision for condonation of delay and the appeal prior to\namendments

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

TDS on advertisement expenses and office rent. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

TDS u/s. 194C wasnot deducted Rs. 7,57,720/- iv) Disallowance of transportation charges Rs. 35,850/- v) Expenses not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act Rs. 13,276/- Total Disallowances Rs. 30,55,158/- In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant are dismissed. 5.9 Before parting

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed in limine as time-barred

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 [Financial Year: 2012-13 / Q2-26Q) M/S. Supreme Transport Ito Tds-Ii, Company, Indore 201, Vikram Tower, बनाम/ Sneh Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaufs5010N Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025

TDS – Rs. 6,000/-] was levied. Aggrieved by AO’s action, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and claimed that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power available to AO for charging late-fee u/s 234E. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the CIT(A) disposed of assessee’s appeal and deleted late fee levied by AO accepting that

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

TDS deductible, the period\nof delay, interest leviable u/s 201(1A) in his orders. Ultimately, the AO\npassed three separate orders for respective years demanding tax and\ninterest payable by assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in\nfirst-appeals before CIT(A) but could not represent cases and the CIT(A)\npassed ex-parte orders dismissing assessee's appeals. Still

M/S KAIPAN PANMASALA P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Kaipan Panmasala P. Ito -2(3) Ltd. Bhopal 10-A Sector-D Industrial Vs. Area Govindpura Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadck 3766 H Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2023

condoned delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving I proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2.That on the facts

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

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

condoned. 2.1 We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the application as well as in the affidavit. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay that before the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2023 which was received by the assessee only in the month of October

SHAHANSHAH DAL MILL,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

TDS default and the point has already been\nconsidered in earlier Para. All the expenses have been claimed by the\nassessee in the account of firm after 15.06.14, but the assessee has claimed\ninterest of Rs. 21,11,436/- on unsecured loan received from various 9 parties\nfor the period of 01.04.14 to 31.03.15. Hence, the amount of interest

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

TDS deductible, the period\nof delay, interest leviable u/s 201(1A) in his orders. Ultimately, the AO\npassed three separate orders for respective years demanding tax and\ninterest payable by assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in\nfirst-appeals before CIT(A) but could not represent cases and the CIT(A)\npassed ex-parte orders dismissing assessee's appeals. Still

STUTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,NAGDA vs. ITO 2(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

condone delay is attached herewith. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the order passed by Hon. CI T(A) may please be set aside as the Hon. CIT (A)erred 8 confirming order by verifying reason of not using postal address Rs. 0 given in Form

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

BANK OF INDIA ,LAXMIBAI NAGAR ,INDORE vs. ITP TDS -2, INDORE

The appeal is dismissed being time-barred

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

TDS)-2, Indore u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act,1961. Since the issues for adjudication are identical in both cases, we have heard both of these appeals together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. Page