ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2022

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,CHANDPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 306/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BHABHRA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 304/IND/2022[2014-1]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,PETLAWAD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 307/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,ALIRAJPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 310/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for the period prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,AHOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 313/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,JHABUA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 309/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DHAMNOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 316/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DHAMNOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 315/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 317/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 318/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,KALYANPURA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 319/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 320/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 322/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 321/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 324/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The decisions of various High Courts and Tribunals in favor of the assessee were followed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,KHAWASA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 326/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BOLASA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 325/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 323/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,SEHORE vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 328/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

ENTELLUS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,BHOPAL vs ACIT, CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

ITA 54/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the unsigned draft MOU was a 'dumb document' and had no legal sanctity, especially since a subsequent registered document existed. The addition was also deleted in the case of the other party involved, confirming the assessee's explanation.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BAKANER vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, SEHORE MANDI

ITA 327/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

ENTELLUS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,BHOPAL vs ACIT, CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

ITA 55/IND/2022[12-13]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the unsigned draft MOU was a 'dumb document' and had no legal sanctity, especially since a subsequent registered document existed. The addition was not sustained as the assessee had explained the actual consideration and terms.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DEHRI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 278/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

SHRI S.K.JAIN,BHOPAL vs THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 285/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: Heard11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest on FDR and commercial tax refund cannot be treated as part of turnover for profit estimation. These amounts should be treated as income. Therefore, the AO's view was not permissible or plausible.

SMT SHIKHA MAHENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs THE ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

ITA 214/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that the peak credit of Rs. 8,03,000/- was not disputed. However, since the assessee's claim of cash in hand from savings was not substantiated with specific details, the Tribunal allowed partial relief.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,ALI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 222/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,ALI,DHAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 223/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,MHAIDPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 224/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BHABHRA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 226/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,UMARKOT vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 225/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BHABHRA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 227/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAJGARH NAKA JHABUA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 229/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,CHANDPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 228/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DHOLANA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 241/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DEHRI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 230/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,BAKANER vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 242/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,NISARPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 244/IND/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,GHATABILLOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 245/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,JHABUA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 248/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,TRIMURTI NAGAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 246/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,JIBAT vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 249/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,PITHAMPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 247/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,JIBAT vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 250/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,AMBUA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 252/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DHAMNOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 257/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal as Section 200A, prior to its amendment, did not empower the authorities to levy such fees. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,RAIPURIYA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 259/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal as Section 200A, prior to its amendment, did not empower the revenue authorities to demand such fees. Decisions in favor of the assessee were followed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,JEERABAD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 261/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,SEMALDA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 262/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,DHULET vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 260/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

M.P.GRAMIN BANK,TEHKUKSHIDIST vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 271/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the precedent set in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.