SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
What were the facts?
The appeals concerned the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The lower authorities had levied the fee based on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Rajesh Kaurani, while the assessees relied on ITAT decisions holding the fee non-applicable retrospectively.
What were the issues?
Whether the late fee under Section 234E is applicable for TDS statement filing delays prior to June 1, 2015, given the absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)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.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI1,778 citing73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · HC
- Kourani v. Union OF India1,708 citing83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · HC
- CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.1,558 citing367 ITR 466 · 2014 · SC · Read judgment
- Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI844 citing289 CTR 602 · 2016 · HC
- Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(TDS)148 citing121 DTR 81 · 2015
- Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT143 citing161 ITD 313 · 2016 · ITAT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.21-24/Ran/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 Shree Balaji Steel Works ACIT, CPC, बनाम / Marwari Para Road, Gaziabad V/s. Jugsalai, Jamshedpur-831006 [PAN No. ABBFS 3293 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Chandan Das, JCIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue ITA No.250-251/Ran/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 (Q4-26Q)(Q-3-24Q)
M/s Comprehensive ACIT, Centrallised बनाम / Neomarketing System Pvt. Processing Cell-TDS, V/s. Ltd. Rattanlall Surajmull Aayakar Bhawan, Compound, C.N. Tower, 56- Sesctoro-3, Vaishali, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ghaziabad, U.P. [PAN No. AAECC 1221 E] 201010 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent
ITA No.252-255/Ran/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 (Q2-26Q)(Q-2-24Q) Assessment Year:2014-15 (Q2-26Q)(Q1-26Q) C.N. Automobiles ACIT, Centrallised बनाम / Rattanlall Surajmull Processing Cell-TDS, V/s. Compound, C.N. Tower, 56- Aayakar Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Sesctoro-3, Vaishali, [PAN No. AAHFC 9438 P] Ghaziabad, U.P. 201010
ITA No.21-24/R/17, 250-259/R/18 AYs 13-14 Shri Balaji Steel Works, M/s Comprehensive Neomarketing Sy
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S Good Health Food Pvt., Ltd., Ranchi vs ACIT, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS…Ranchi15 Feb 2019Allowed
Also relies on Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to ...
- State Bank of India, Gwalior vs CIT A, GwaliorAgra31 May 2018Allowed
Also relies on Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision under Section 200A of the Act to levy late fee under Section 234E. Therefore, such levy for periods before this date was invalid.
- Iycworld Softinfrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…Delhi25 Jun 2024Allowed
Also relies on Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be charged for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the machinery provision under Section 200A was not applicable for such levies before that date. Following th...
- Anil Bohra, Chennai vs ACIT CPC-TDS, GhaziabadChennai28 Nov 2018Allowed
Also relies on Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.
- Anil Bohra, Chennai vs ACIT CPC-TDS, GhaziabadChennai28 Nov 2018Allowed
Also relies on Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid for the assessment years under cons...
More judgments on Section 234E
- 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
