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 › 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…
  • Navin Jolly vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court) The usage of the property has to be considered for determining whether the property in question is a residential property or a commercial property. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two apartments are being put to commercial use and therefore, the aforesaid apartments cannot be treated as residential…
  • DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled rules of Interpretation with regard to taxing statutes. The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. [See: U.P.SUGAR MILLS ASSN. VS. STATE OF U.P.’, (2002) 2 SCC 645]. The aforesaid principle of…
  • M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The declaration of law by this Court is binding on all authorities within the State including the Commission. The petitioner was entitled…
  • PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd (Bombay High Court) In NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer had made independent and detailed inquiry including survey of the investor companies. The field report revealed that the shareholders were either non-existent or lacked credit-worthiness. It is in these circumstances, Supreme Court held that the onus to establish identity…
  • PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd (Bombay High Court) Sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in any Assessment Year as a loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the Assessee. Subsequently, if any remission or waiver is granted in respect of which such…

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.

*