VEERASAGARA RANGAIAH RAMANNA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.21078 / 2022 (T-It) Between:

TDS amount as claimed by the petitioner in the return of income for the relevant assessment years along with interest as applicable. ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of principles of natural

HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, this petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

TDS) CIRCLE 16(2) BANGALORE, 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE - 560 032. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE & TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. JUNE 13, 2103, ENCLOSED AS ANN-H ALONGWITH THE NOTICE

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

natural justice. (n) On the principles of proportionality the impugned provision has to be struck down since fee is not levied on quantum of income but on the number of days delay. (o) The scheme of Section 234E appears to be irrational and failure to classify properly amongst deductors, there is intelligible differentia between the same class of persons