MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that section 200A of the Income-tax Act did not have an enabling provision for levying fee under section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed TDS statements with a delay in remittance of TDS amount. The CPC charged a fee under section 234E while processing these statements. The assessee contested this levy, but their appeals were dismissed by the first appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether fee under section 234E can be levied under section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, in the absence of an enabling provision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI1,778 citing73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
per the well settled legal principles, in case, there are two contrary decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the decision expressing the view in favour of the assessee has to be followed. In fact, there are number of decisions of the coordinate Benches, wherein, the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed and the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.
Therefore, following the consistent approach of various Benches of the Tribunal, we hold that no fee under section 234E of the Act can be levied for any period prior to 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS statements/returns under section 200A of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the additions/adjustments made by the CPC. Grounds are allowed.
In the result, appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/09/2023.
More judgments on Section 200A
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2669/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2668/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2667/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Suyash Dhondu Paste, Ratnagiri vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, KolhapurITA 2666/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026