ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2022

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

ITA 273/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment on June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 274/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,LABRIYA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 279/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,PADIYAL vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 282/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,BAKANER vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 284/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,PADIYAL vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 280/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,NISARPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 287/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 favour of the assessee were followed.

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

ITA 288/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 favour of the assessee were followed.

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

ITA 289/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,BADNAWAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 286/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,PITHAMPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 293/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment on June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 290/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,TRIMURTI NAGAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 292/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.

MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK,PITHAMPUR vs ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 294/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment on June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 296/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 authorities to raise such demands. Decisions in favour of the assessee were followed.

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

ITA 299/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 it was made before the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such demands. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 297/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,UMARKOT vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 301/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. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the levy was cancelled.

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

ITA 251/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,KAKANWANI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 255/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,BAKANER vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 243/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,JIBAT vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 298/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.

AMJAD KHAN,INDORE vs ITO 5 (5), INDORE

ITA 122/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: Heard11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act by not disposing of the appeal properly. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

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

ITA 264/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,AHOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 263/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 the period prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demand before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 265/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 it was made before the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled such demands. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 266/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment on June 1, 2015. Following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions, the levy was cancelled.

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

ITA 267/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment on June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

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

ITA 269/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,DHAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 311/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,SEMALDA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 312/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 268/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. Decisions in favour of the assessee by other High Courts were followed.

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

ITA 285/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 276/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal if the demand was raised under Section 200A before the amendment that enabled such demand. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in favour of the assessee.

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

ITA 272/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,PITHAMPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 295/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,DHAMNOD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 314/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,RAMBHAPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 253/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,BHABHRA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 256/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,PADIYAL vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 281/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,PETLAWAD vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 308/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,DEHRI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 277/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,AMBADA vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 283/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 275/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,RAMBHAPUR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 254/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,SARANGI vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 270/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 258/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,TRIMURTI NAGAR vs THE ACIT,CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 291/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.

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 349/IND/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings without proper application of mind and without valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment order were quashed.

THE DCIT 5(1), BHOPAL vs M.P. RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

ITA 95/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.