Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › M/s Shree Builders vs. UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

M/s Shree Builders vs. UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 18, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (shree_234E_stay_MPHC.pdf)


S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statement

S. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day’s delay in filing the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or Tax Collected at Source (TCS). A Writ Petition to challenge the validity of s. 234E has been filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. HELD by the High Court by an ad-interim order:

Issue notice to the respondents on interim relief. Additionally issue notice to Attorney General of India as the validity of the Central enactment is put in issue.

By way of ad interim relief, we direct the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner with regard to the subject matter referred to in the impugned Annexures P/2 to P/5. We are inclined to grant this order ex parte keeping in mind the orders passed by other High Courts (High Court of Kerala, High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Rajasthan, Bombay High Court and High Court of Orissa).

Note: The orders referred to above are Rashmikant Kundalia (Bom), Narath Mapila LP School (Ker), Adithya Bizorp Solutions (Kar) & Om Prakash Dhoot (Raj). The CBDT has vide Circular No. 07/2014 dated 04.03.2014 extended the due date of filing of the TDS/TCS statement for Government deductors

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court) 

    The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The … CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Sahney Kirkwood vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the question arose whether in respect of an appeal admitted u/s 260A, the High Court has power to grant stay of recovery of outstanding demand, HELD:
     
    (i) S. 260A provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court shall apply; 

    (ii)…
  3. CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 

    Sale & Lease back transactions are not a “sham” The assessee, a State Electricity Board, sold energy saving devices on which 100% depreciation was permitted and took the same assets on lease and claimed a deduction for the lease rent. … CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Punjab…
  4. Visvas Promoters vs. ITAT (Madras High Court) 

    (i) The writ petition against the MA order was maintainable because the assessee has no alternative remedy. An appeal u/s 260A can be filed only against an order passed u/s 254 (1) and not against one passed u/s 254 (2);
     
    (ii) On merits, even though it was true…
  5. Paramount Health Services vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 

    In KEC International it was noted that in a large number of matters orders are passed perfunctorily by the department only with an idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. The law laid down…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*