SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: 15 Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO. LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

TDS statement was inserted. Section 234E for ready reference is reproduced and the same reads as under: 15 Fee for default in furnishing statements. 234E. (1

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

1) of the Act or in other words it militates against Section 4 and as such the impugned provision is unconstitutional. (e) When the reasons for introduction of impugned provision indicates that as a deterrence against delayed filing of the TDS statements, Fee is sought to be recovered under Section 234E