Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)Rajesh Kourani vs Union Of India & 4 on 20 June, 2017
The only objection of the ld. CIT(A) is
that this decision and others to the same effect have been taken
into consideration by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while passing
'Rajesh Kaurani' (supra).
State Bank Of India, Gwalior vs Cit A , Gwalior on 31 May, 2018
7. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
material available on the record of the Tribunal along with the judicial
pronouncement placed by the ld. AR of the assessee. I find that in all the
three cases late fees for filing the statement has been levied u/s.234E of
the Act by the tax authorities. However, in respect of TDS statement filed
for a period prior to 01.06.2015, no late fee could be levied in the
intimation issued u/s.200A of the Act. I am also in agreement with the
contention of the ld. AR that the amendment brought in the Finance Act
2015 w.e.f.01.06.2015 in Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is
prospective in nature, therefore, no computation of late fee or demand or
intimation u/s.234E of the Act could be made for TDS deducted in
respective statements prior to 01.06.2015 and processed u/s.200A of the
Act. I have also gone through the decision of coordinate bench of the
Tribunal placed by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of State Bank of
India, Gwalior Vs. CIT(A), ITA No.442/Ag/2018, order dated 09.04.2018,
wherein the Tribunal in para 13 has held as under :-
Section 200A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Commr.Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
9. It is seen that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in
the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E
of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging
provision i.e. substantive provision which could not be applied
retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided in the Act, to levy the
late fee for any delay in filing the TDS statement for the period prior
to 01.06.2015. The counsel for the assessee has rightly contended
that in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A of the Act, such
levy of late fee is not valid relying on Group of SBI and Ors.
The decisions in the cases of 'CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
(2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), 'Sudarshan Goyal vs DCIT (TDS)' ITA
No.442/Agr/2017 and Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UOI (2016) 289 CTR
0602 (Karn) (HC). The decisions relied on by the Ld. DR are
distinguishable on facts, as the issue involved in those cases
pertains to interest u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS
whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of
late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which
was inserted from 01.06.2015.
Sudharshan Goyal , Guna vs Dcit-Tds, Ghaziabad on 9 April, 2018
10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the
assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS)', in ITA No.
442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.).
The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows:
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration the settled law that
where there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts
on an issue, the one in favour of the assessee needs to be
followed. It has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'CIT
vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.', 88 ITR 192 (SC). It is also not a case
where the decision against the assessee has been rendered by
the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee.
1