SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: Provided further that no penalty shall be levied under this section

M/S PROCESS PUMPS vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

206 and 206C and 71[statements under sub-section (2A) or sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) or under sub-section (3A) of section 206C] shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be: Provided further that no penalty shall be levied under this section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

TDS), thus giving decision which is beyond jurisdiction and the issue what Tribunal has not considered whether the lapse which the seller has committed by not obliging to collect tax in the absence of declaration by the buyer is condonable or not? 7 3. We have heard Mr.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for appellant-revenue. 4. The relevant discussion

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

TDS statements is beyond one 71 year, then both Sections 234E and 271H will be attracted for the same default and no person can be punished for the same default/offence more than once and it is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (g) Impugned provision is against the principle of “audi alterum partem” - no one should