ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2019

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 339/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 340/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 379/IND/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 378/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

KRIPASHANKAR PARMAR L/H LATE SHRI DEVKARAN PARMAR,VILLAGE FARAD, KALAPEEPAL SHAJAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR

ITA 615/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal noted that income was assessed based on JCB operations and that depreciation is normally allowable. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment.

BENI PRASAD PARMAR,SHUJALPUR MANDI DISTRICT SHAJAPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), UJJAIN

ITA 607/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence presented by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for a fresh assessment.

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD.,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 347/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 381/IND/2018[16-17]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 392/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD,BHOPAL vs THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL

ITA 342/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 390/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 376/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 355/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 377/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 389/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD.,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 345/IND/2018[10-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 358/IND/2018[16-17]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 357/IND/2018[15-16]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 380/IND/2018[15-16]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 391/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 338/IND/2018[10-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S N.T. THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs THE ITO-(EXEMPTION), INDORE

ITA 27/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 393/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

ITA 400/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 395/IND/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

ITA 394/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

ITA 375/IND/2018[10-11]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 354/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 343/IND/2018[15-16]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 356/IND/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

BENI PRASAD PARMAR,SHUJALPUR MANDI DISTRICT SHAJAPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), UJJAIN

ITA 608/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence presented by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for a fresh assessment.

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

ITA 353/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 344/IND/2018[16-17]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 342/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs DCIT (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

ITA 341/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD.,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 349/IND/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD.,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 348/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD.,INDORE vs DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 346/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

ITA 334/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Following the instructions and precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable.

SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA,BHOPAL vs THE DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

ITA 678/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the additional ground related to Section 153C jurisdiction, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. For other appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to denial of cross-examination and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.N.D.DIVISION,RAJPUR vs THE DCIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 81/IND/2018[16-17 Q-1]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

PUSHPA VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

ITA 363/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

ITA 420/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done considering that the original assessment order was set aside to the CIT(A) and an affidavit from the broker was submitted.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,INDORE vs DCIT CPC TDS, BHOPAL

ITA 129/IND/2018[14-15 24 Q2]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

PUSHPA VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

ITA 364/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

M/S PATRAKAR SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (RANGE)-2, INDORE

ITA 73/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

SMT BEENA SANGHVI,INDORE vs THE DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

ITA 41/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

ITA 421/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done considering that the original assessment order was set aside to the CIT(A) and an affidavit from the broker was submitted.

PUSHPA VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

ITA 362/IND/2018[11-12]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.

PUSHPA VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

ITA 365/IND/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for most assessees, where assessments were completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified as earlier defaults were considered waived. However, in the case of Sunit Madhok for AY 2016-17, where the assessment was ex-parte and an addition was made, the penalty was upheld.