“Section 200(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 200Section 200(3)818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 200(3) is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 200(3)

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI

73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court

1,778

citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Kourani v. Union OF India

83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court

1,708

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI

289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court

844

citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India

63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court

397

citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court

264

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI

115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court

178

citing judgments

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E and penalties under Section 271H, finding the charging provision to be Section 234E, with the power to levy existing from 01/07/2012.

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT

23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court

147

citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

Judgments citing Section 200(3)

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Cicilia Pinto, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 622/BANG/2021[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

section 234E of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered, a statement within the time prescribed in section 200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, he shall be liable

Cicilia Pinto, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 621/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

M/S. Vth Source Components Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Govershan Venture Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 181/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 271H

provides for levy Govershan Venture Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.181/Mum./2020 of fee for default in furnishing any statement within the time prescribed in section 200(3) of the Act or proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. Section 234E of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012. Simultaneously

ACIT(TDS)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Nesco Complex, Indabrator Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , 400051. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.108/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.1402/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Nesco Complex, Indabrator Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , Mumbai- 400051. 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs9822Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri Yazdi P. Jijina सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri YazdiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 133ASection 201(1)

decisions cited. So far as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that in terms of section 200(3), the assessee has filed statements of TDS before the Department within the prescribed time. In fact, in the submissions made by the assessee as reproduced

Kooud Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

prior to Section 271H of the Act inserted in the statute book, the enforceability of requirement to file return under Section 200(3) and Section 206C(3) was by virtue of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs. 100/ - per day for each ... penalty shall be imposed for TDS after, 101.0 7.2012. 19. Hence, it can he said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6076/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

time of purchase albeit on 5.4.2014 and on the same date, statement has also been filed. The relevant provision of section 200(3) read with rule 31A (4A) only refers to filing of 'challan cum statement' after the tax has been paid. The word "challan" in the said rule indicates ... that is how form 26QB is generated. Thus, here in this case, it cannot be held that there is any violation of section 200(3). In any case, the levy of fee u/s 200A in accordance with the provision of section 234E has come into the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Since

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6075/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

Nkc Projects (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

ITA 803/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR

Section 2Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 272Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On failure of the assessee to furnish the quarterly statement within the prescribed limit under section 200(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules

Shakuntala Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15 Shakuntala Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds C/O Rra Taxindia, D- Ghaziabad. 28, South Extension, Part-1 New Delhi – 110 049 Pan Acjpg5891Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 194ISection 200Section 200ASection 201Section 220Section 220(2)Section 222Section 234ESection 3