Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Genus Consortium Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

2017 (3) TMI 1572 - ITAT JAIPUR

Constitutional validity of section 234E challenged - Fee for default in furnishing TDS return/statements - as per assessee “fee” is known in the commercial and legal world to be a recompense of some service or some special service performed, and it cannot be collected for any dis-service or default - Held that:- Due to late submission of TDS statements means the Department is burdened with extra work which is otherwise not required if the TDS statements were furnished within the prescribed time. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax. See Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India [2015 (2) TMI 412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 88, 89 & 90/JP/2017 - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - Bhagchand (Accountant Member) And Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : K. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are common except change in figure, which reads as under :- ITA No. 88/JP/2017 : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances o the case, the ld. CIT (A) has legally and factually erred in confirming late filing fee of ₹ 17,000/- charged by ld. A.O. under section 234E o the IT Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that during the relevant period there was no such provision in section 200A o the IT Act, 1961 for charging such late filing fee while processing the Quarterly statement filed in form No. 26Q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itten brief. 2.1. On the contrary, the ld. Departmental Representatives supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the issue is decided against the assessee by Hon ble Bombay High Court vide judgment rendered in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India. 2.2. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that this judgment was considered by the coordinate bench and decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 738/JP/2016. 2.3. We have heard the rival contention .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version