9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed in detail the general principle of concerning retrospectively and held that unless contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to have a retrospective operation - we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to drop the demand raised of ₹ 4,200/- u/s 234E on statements processed u/s 200A before 01.06.2015. Thus grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 722 & 723/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (C.A) Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (JCIT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E was levied for the delay of 21 days in filing the quarterly statement of TDS in Form 26Q for the third quarter of financial year 2012-13. Against this intimation, applicant filed an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who relying on the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others dated 28.07.2015 upheld the levy of fees under section 234E of the Act for delay in filing the TDS return. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued no fees could be levied u/s 234E while issuing intimation u/s 200A before 01.06.2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E while issuing intimation u/s 200A was vested with revenue only on substitution of clause (c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan and Others, the ld. Counsel contended that Hon ble Court has upheld the constitutional validity of levy of fees under sec. 234E of the Act and has not discussed the levy of fees under section 234E in the TDS statement processed under sec. 200A of the Act before 1.6.2015. Therefore the finding that we do not find that prior to this amendment the imposition of fees was illegal cannot be taken as base for levy of fees under sec. 234E on the statements processed under section 200A particularly when Karnataka High Court in its decision dated 26.08.2016 has categorically held that No demand for fees u/s 234 E can be made in the intimation issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
