| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
April 30, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
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 Bombay High Court. The Petition claims that assessees who are deducting tax at source are discharging an administrative function of the department and that they are a “honorary agent” of the department. It is stated that this obligation is onerous in nature and that there are already numerous penalties prescribed for a default. It is stated that the fee now levied by s. 234E is “exponentially harsh and burdensome” and also “deceitful, atrocious and obnoxious“. It is also claimed that Parliament does not have the jurisdiction or competence to impose such a levy on tax-payers.
The Bombay High Court has, vide order dated 28.04.2014, granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (d) i.e. stayed the operation of the impugned notices levying the fee.
Related Posts:
- PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
Some Professionals and lawyers or the association of Taxpayers and practitioners need to take this issue of any kind of burden on assesses who are discharging the duty of the Government and instead of rewarding in some manner, say by incentive in tax payment ( if TDS is deducted and paid), the duty is cast on them as though they are culprits and serial offenders of the tax department. THIS CONCEPT IS UNFAIR AND UNJUST.
PL SEND THE WHOLE JUDGEMENT COPY AND FOLLOW UP ACTIONS, ISSUES AND JUDGEMENTS
One must comply withthe provisions of Income Tax as his duty reasonably so that this type situation may not arise.
Does this stay order apply on all notices served to all assessees, or only to the petitioner’s notices?
Can I have the complete copy of Judgement please ?
You can download it by clicking the download icon to the right of the post. For now, here is the link:
http://itatonline.org/archives/?dl_id=1235
Does this stay order apply on all notices served to all assessees, or only to the petitioner’s notices?
Is this applicable in Andhra Pradesh.
and my next doubt is “Is it just a stay or waiver of penalty completely”
Not comment one question from mine. that is “ANY FURTHER ORDER AGAINST WRIT PETITION MATTER REGARDING u/S 234E?” & I think any subjudice matter applicable through out the Country.
Hello sir,
1. In the case of Govt Deductor , All tax are deduct by DDO paying salary and amount of tax alredy laying with Govt tressey .why not Income tax Dept open one window that tax deducted on salary will auto credit to Income tax account through Tressry office ? However so many benefit of money and time to Dept.
2. After heavy demand by I tax Dept. send notice to stop Bill of payment .Why not make a system if DDO are not filed his e TDS on time ,Notice will iniated to tresry to stop payment .It helps to less demand to beneit of money ,time to work another creative works.
It is personnal openion.not for legual statement.