ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2019

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

ITA 401/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

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

ITA 405/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

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

ITA 403/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

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

ITA 402/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

DR. RAMESH CHANDRA BADLANI,INDORE vs ITO 2(4), INDORE

ITA 467/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) did not pass orders on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 576/IND/2018[2014-13]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2014-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees prior to this amendment was incorrect.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 573/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SH. NARENDRA MODI,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 938/IND/2018[2014-15 (Fy. 2013-14 Q2)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 948/IND/2018[2013-14(FY 2012-13Q4)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 946/IND/2018[2013-14(FY2012-13 Q2)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SH. NARENDRA MODI,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 944/IND/2018[2014-15(FY2013-14Q1)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SMT BEENA SANGHVI, INDORE vs THE DCIT-CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 564/IND/2018[15-16]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 893/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 947/IND/2018[2013-14(FY 2012-13 Q3]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 575/IND/2018[14-15 Q-3]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 891/IND/2018[F.Y. 2013-14 (1 Q - 26Q)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such levy, was prospective.

SPAAG SALES PVT. LTD,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 952/IND/2018[2013-14(FY 2012-13Q4)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 949/IND/2018[2013-14(FY 2012-13) (24Q4)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this amendment was unjustified.

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs IITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 945/IND/2018[2014-15(FY2013-14-Q1)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this amendment was incorrect.

M/S. M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CROP.,BHOPAL vs THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

ITA 943/IND/2018[2013-14(FY2012-13) (26Q3)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees prior to the amendment was not justified.

M/S. M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CROP.,BHOPAL vs THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

ITA 941/IND/2018[2013-14(FY2012-13)(24Q3)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such levy, was prospective.

SH. NARENDRA MODI,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 940/IND/2018[2014-15 (FY 13-14 Q4)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to the amendment was incorrect.

SH. NARENDRA MODI,INDORE vs ITO TDS-1, INDORE

ITA 939/IND/2018[2014-15(FY 2013-14 Q3)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this amendment was incorrect.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 892/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees prior to the amendment was not justified.

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

ITA 890/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to the amendment was not justified.

SHRI RATANLAL SONI,DEPALPUR INDORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 678/IND/2018[2014-15 (Q4)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such levy, was prospective.

SHRI MUKESH JAIN,INDORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-CPC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 651/IND/2018[2013-14 (Q2 26Q)]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such levy, was prospective.

M.P.RAJYA POWER LOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 565/IND/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

SHRI VISHRAM GHAT COMMITTEE TRUST,BHOPAL vs THE DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 602/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

GOVT, HIGH SCHOOL,INDORE vs DY,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 598/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this amendment was incorrect.

ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE, INDORE

ITA 597/IND/2018[15-16]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such levy, was prospective.

OFFICE OF THE PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR COMMAND AREA DEV & WATER MANAGMENT CEL,INDORE vs DY.CIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 609/IND/2018[2014-15 24Q1]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was not justified for periods before the amendment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE ITARSI, BHOPAL vs SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, HOSHANGABAD

ITA 514/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 708/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 700/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

SHRI RAM KUMAR SWAMI,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 711/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 701/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI LALTA PRASAD CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 706/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 702/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI SURESH KUMAR UPADHYAY,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 699/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 707/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 703/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 704/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 710/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 709/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 705/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

THE ITO-EXEMPTION, INDORE vs M/S VAJDI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, INDORE

ITA 582/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on confirmed additions. Since the quantum additions were set aside for fresh adjudication, the penalty could not be levied at that stage. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the penalty.

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: Disposed4 Jun 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the reopening of cases for AY 2010-11. It also found that incidental expenses claimed against undisclosed income should not be brushed aside, and the issue of disallowance of such expenses was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

AMIT JAIN, MUMBAI vs PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

ITA 494/IND/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019Withdrawn

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.