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

Home › All Judgements › Adithya Bizorp Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)

Adithya Bizorp Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (adithya_Bizorp_234E_penalty_stay.pdf)


S. 234E: High Court grants interim stay on enforcement of notices for levy of 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). The constitutional validity of s. 234E has been challenged in the Karnataka High Court. Vide an interim order dated 19.02.2014 the High Court held as follows:

Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B. Pending consideration of the grounds in the writ petition, it is desirable that enforcement of notices referred to above issued by the 4th respondent are stayed until further orders.

Note: A similar stay has been granted by the Kerala High Court in Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI

Related Posts:

  • PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority…
  • FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court) We find that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner are well founded and it must succeed. The audit report merely gives an opinion with regard to the non-availability of the deduction both under section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section…
  • XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court) Firstly, in the impugned order, the first appellate authority throwing to the winds, the principles of judicial discipline and binding order passed by higher appellate forum, not only reiterated his own stand, which were set aside by the Tribunal but the same is sought to be defended by the Department…
  • PCIT vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) This Court cannot be expected to undertake the exercise of comparison of the comparables itself which is essentially a fact finding exercise. Neither the sufficient Data nor factual informations nor any technical expertise is available with this Court to undertake any such fact finding exercise in the said appeals under…
  • ACIT vs. Epson India Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) It is the unnecessary dogged approach of the Revenue to multiply the litigations in the Constitutional Courts, in turn wasting the precious public hours of time and unholy desire to become a litigant in the Constitutional Courts at Government costs, though there may be absolutely no justification for doing so.…
  • PCIT vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) We express our concern and anguish at the tendency of the Revenue Department to file unnecessary appeals u/s. 260-A of the Act even though the issues are ex facie covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The substantial question of…

Related Judgements

  1. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›
  2. CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) 

    As s. 35-G of the Central Excise Act (and s. 130 of the Customs Act) provides that an appeal to the High Court shall be filed within 180 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and there is no provision for condonation of delay the court has…
  3. DIT vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Delhi High Court) 

    Where the assessee was a company incorporated in the Netherlands and its main activity was operation of aircrafts in international traffic both for transport of passengers and cargo and its income was exempt under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands and it recovered charges from…
  4. DIT vs. Oman International Bank (Bombay High Court) 

    Held, affirming the majority view of the Special Bench in DCIT vs. Oman International Bank 100 ITD 285 that:

     

    (i) Though the Circulars issued by the CBDT are not binding on the court as held in CCE vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries 231 ELT 22 (S.C.), it is binding…
  5. Madhushree Gupta vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) 

    The Revenue’s submission that prima facie satisfaction of the AO need not be reflected at the stage of initiation is not acceptable. The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away even post amendment. If an…
One comment on “Adithya Bizorp Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)”
  1. HARSHADRAI says:
    May 4, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    If CBDT introduce TDS Challan cum Form No 16 A for 194A etc many many problem will be solved. CBDT has already made arrangement for 194-IA deductor, Why not for others? All India Federation of Income-tax Practitioner,CA Institute,ASSOCHAM,Chamber of Commerce etc should file write petition. 9425517209

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

*