GLEE PHARMA PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. DCIT(TDS)(CPC), GHAZIABAD,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the AO did not have the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late filing fees for the period before this date was unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted tax at source and filed TDS returns, but there was a delay in filing. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued demand notices for late filing fees under Section 234E, processed under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the levy.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO had the authority to levy late filing fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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
- Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI844 citing289 CTR 602 · 2016 · HC
- Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal v. Union of India58 citing62 Taxmann.com 310 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders
of the CIT(A)-, Cuttack all dated 29.1.2016 for the assessment year
2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee deducted tax at source u/s. 194-I of the Income tax act, 1961 and filed e-TDS returns for the quarter -1, Quarter-3 and Quarter-4. However, as per the Department, there was delay in filing of the return and, accordingly,
demand notices were issued u/s. 200A of the Act for the above three
quarters calling upon the assessee to pay late filing fee under section 234E of the Act of Rs.10,490/- for 1st quarter, Rs4,700/- for 3rd quarter
and Rs.15,400/- for 4th quarter. Asse ssme
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.
More judgments on Section 194-I
- Chandra Mani Tripathi Vijay Pratap Singh… vs Income Tax Officer 4(1) Lko New, LucknowITA 512/LKW/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Skytech Construction Private Limited, New… vs Income Tax Officer, New DelhiITA 3179/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Anita Grover, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, DelhiITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Smash Factor Sports Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITSSA 427/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Smash Factor Sports Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITSSA 426/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026