Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

As regards economic and other regulatory legislation judicial restraint must be observed by the Court and greater latitude must be given to the legislature while adjudging the constitutionality of the statute because the Court does not consist of economic or administrative experts. It has no expertise in these matters, and in this age of specialisation when policies have to be laid down with great care after consulting the specialists in the field, it will be wholly unwise for the Court to encroach into the domain of the executive or legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its own views and perceptions.? 34. The Parliament is competent to pass legislation on Taxes in Income under Entry 82 of the List I to the Seventh Schedule. Section 234 F is not violative of any of the other provisions of Income Tax Act or the Constitution of India. Nothing has been shown as to how the Section is manifestly arbitrary for it to be struck down. 35. In view of the above, W.P.Nos.13331, 13118 and 13377 of 2019 failand are hereby dismissed.Since the levy is constitutional, the challenge to the demand notices also fai

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 234 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961—Levy of fee— The assessee contends that Section 234 E of the Income Tax Act is penalty in the shape of a fee. It is submitted that prior to the introduction of Section 234 E, penalty for non-filing of the TDS statements was Rs. 100/- per day as provided for under Section 272 A (2) (K) of the Act. It is submitted that Section 234 E deals with the fee payable for default in filing TDS statement on 1/7/2012. According to the assessee, the prescribed form for filing TDS statement did not have a provision for payment of fine for default and the fee under Section 234 E of the Act can be collected only from 1/6/2015. It is submitted that Section 200 A of the Act was amended by insertion of Clause (c) to enable collection of fee under Section 234 in the form prescribed under Section 200 (3) and processed under Section 200 (A) of the Act.  The fee levied under Section 234 E is not justifiable in the context of no increasing/additional service being rendered to demand an incrementally increasing fee for every additional day of continuing to be in default.
The Parliament is competent to pass legislation on Taxes in Income under Entry 82 of the List I to the Seventh Schedule. Section 234 F is not violative of any of the other provisions of Income Tax Act or the Constitution of India. Nothing has been shown as to how the Section is manifestly arbitrary for it to be struck down.

In view of the above writ petitions were fail and were dismissed. Since the levy was constitutional, thus the challenge to the demand notices were also fail. --- QATALYS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UOI. [2020] 23 ITCD Online 2 (MAD)