ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2019

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

ITA 35/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.

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

ITA 40/IND/2018[15-16]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.

M/S SHANKESHWAR DEVLOPERS INDORE,INDORE vs DCIT (CPC) (TDS), GAZIABAD

ITA 25/IND/2018[14-15]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.

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

ITA 36/IND/2018[14-15]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.

POOJA SOYA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

ITA 216/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

POOJA SOYA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- RANGE 3, INDORE

ITA 217/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were 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.

M/S SHANKESHWAR DEVLOPERS INDORE,INDORE vs DCIT (CPC) (TDS), GAZIABAD

ITA 27/IND/2018[15-16]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 367/IND/2018[16-17]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RAISEN BRANCH,RAISEN BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 142/IND/2018[13-1426q2]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.

M/S SHANKESHWAR DEVLOPERS INDORE,INDORE vs DCIT (CPC) (TDS), GAZIABAD

ITA 28/IND/2018[15-16]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.

M/S SONO MEDICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

ITA 6/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,DOLARIYA BRANCH,DOLARIYA BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 116/IND/2018[13-14,24q4]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.

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

ITA 137/IND/2018[13-14 24 Q4]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUGALIA HAT BRANCH,MUGALIA HAT BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 138/IND/2018[14-15(24 Q1)]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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,DOLARIYA BRANCH,DOLARIYA BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 120/IND/2018[14-15,26q1]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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,DOLARIYA vs DCIT, BHOPAL

ITA 121/IND/2018[14-15]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.

ARUN KUMAR VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 374/IND/2018[16-17]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SANCHI BRANCH, SANCHI BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 149/IND/2018[14-15-24Q1]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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,GAIRATGANJ BRANCH,GAIRATGANJ BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 131/IND/2018[14-15 24q3]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUGALIA HAT BRANCH,MUGALIA HAT BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 139/IND/2018[14-15,24q2]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.

POOJA SOYA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

ITA 218/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RASHULIYA BRANCH, RASHULIYA BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 143/IND/2018[13-14 24q2]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SANCHI BRANCH, SANCHI BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 148/IND/2018[13-14-24q2]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.

ARUN KUMAR VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 372/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.

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.

M/S RAHELA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 185/IND/2018[2015-16 Q-1, 26 Q]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.

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

ITA 130/IND/2018[14-15 26 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 and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,GAIRATGANJ BRANCH,GAIRATGANJ BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 132/IND/2018[14-15 26q3]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.

ARUN KUMAR VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 373/IND/2018[15-16]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 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.

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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA TIMRANI BRANCH,TIMRANI BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 154/IND/2018[2013-14 24Q3]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 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.

M/S SAHANI TRADING COMPANY,INDORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), INDORE

ITA 209/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had passed an order without proper examination. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SEHORE BRANCH,TIMARANI vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 155/IND/2018[13-14 (26 Q3)]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.

M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LIMITED,INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 (2), INDORE

ITA 187/IND/2018[1998-99]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 1998-99Remanded

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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,TIMRANI vs DCIT CIT TDS, BHOPAL

ITA 157/IND/2018[14-15 (24Q1)]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RASHULIYA BRANCH, RASHULIYA BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 144/IND/2018[13-14 24q3]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUGALIA HAT BRANCH,MUGALIA HAT BRANCH vs DCIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 140/IND/2018[14-15-26q2]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.

M/S SAKAR INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs ITO 5 (1), INDORE

ITA 99/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) had not passed the order on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

PUSHPA VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

ITA 361/IND/2018[10-11]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 366/IND/2018[15-16]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.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,TIMRANI vs DCIT CIT TDS, BHOPAL

ITA 153/IND/2018[13-14 26 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 and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

ARUN KUMAR VERMA,GWALIOR vs DCIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 371/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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BEGUMGUNJ BRANCH,BEGUMGUN BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 113/IND/2018[13-14,26q2]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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,DOLARIYA BRANCH,DOLARIYA BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 118/IND/2018[14-15,24q1]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.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,DOLARIYA BRANCH,DOLARIYA BRANCH vs DY,CIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 119/IND/2018[14-15,24q3]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 DINESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs THE ITO, 5(1), INDORE

ITA 83/IND/2018[12-13]Status: Disposed22 Jan 2019Remanded

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.