Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1618 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Ajvin Infotech (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1499 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6422 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Biswajit Das v. UOI & Ors. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0731 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Rajesh Kourani v. UOI 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1953 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Vidya Vardhani Education and Research Foundation v. Dy. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0708 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. UOI 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0212 (Ker-HC)
REFERRED Maharashtra Cricket Association v. Dy. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4322 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4175 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. UOI 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5497 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Dr. Amrit Lal Mangal v. UOI 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5329 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Lakshminirman Bangalore (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3296 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Rashmikant Kundalia & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0514 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Meeraj Estate & Developers v. Dy. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2039 (Agra-Trib)
REFERRED Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2636 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1800 (Del-HC)
REFERRED K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1484 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0858 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0421 (SC)
REFERRED Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT 1962 TaxPub(DT) 0063 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3591 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 234E

Late fee levied by AO under section 200A read with section 234E for default prior to 1-6-2015 was not valid.

Fee under section 234E - Delay in filing of TDS statements - Leviability - Period of default was before 1-6-2015

AO levied late filing fee under section 234E. Assessee challenged this on the ground that when period of default was before 1-6-2015, there was no merit in charging late filing fee under section 234E. Revenue rejected this on the ground that constitutional validity of section 234E was beyond doubt. Held: Though provisions of section 234E have been held to be constitutionally valid, however, amendments brought in statute with effect from 1-6-2015 are prospective in nature and, therefore, late fee levied by AO under section 200A read with section 234E for defaults prior to 1-6-2015 could not be upheld.

Followed:Prakash Industries Ltd. v. DCIT, [ITA Nos. 5865 to 5869/Del/2016, Order, dated 29-7-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6422 (Del-Trib);M/s. Ajvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA Nos. 2305 & 2306/Del/2017, Order, dated 4-3-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1499 (Del-Trib);M/s. D.D. Motors, Haryana v. DCIT, ITA No. 956/Del/2017, Order, dated 18-10-2019; and District Health & Welfare Society v. ITO, ITA No. 7473/Del/2018, Order, dated 26-4-2019. Relied:Vegetables Products Limited [(1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0421 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assesse's favour

A.Y. :



IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT