Tds return late filing fee u/s 234e

This query is : Resolved 

09 May 2014 dEAR SIR

We have just received Intimation u/s 200A for the payment of late filing fee u/s 234E

Should we pay the same ?

Kerala high court decision applies only to Kerala or other states

help me

should we pay?

09 May 2014 1. Kerala High court decision not yet out. Only a interim stay against the jurisdictional AO was given.

2. unless and until Kerala High Court gives any final order or where other aggrieved parties file application to join the current litigation, the stay order applies only to the petitioner and no one else. The same applies to the similar stays in rajasthan and karnataka high Court..

3. So, unless your client wishes to join any of these cases, the stay is no savior for him and he should pay the fees.

09 May 2014 So sir

it is advisable to pay it without any delay

further

if we don't pay it then what will be the consequences?

09 May 2014 the department can initiate recovery proceedings...

09 February 2015 Mumbai High Court rules - 234E fees constitutionally Valid

Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

S. 234E: The late filing of TDS returns by the deductor causes inconvenience to everyone and s. 234E levies a fee to regularize the said late filing. The fee is not in the guise of a tax nor is it onerous. The levy is constitutionally valid

The late submission of TDS statements means the Department is burdened with extra work which is otherwise not required if the TDS statements were furnished within the prescribed time. This fee is for the payment of the additional burden forced upon the Department. A person deducting the tax (the deductor), is allowed to file his TDS statement beyond the prescribed time provided he pays the fee as prescribed under section 234E of the Act. In other words, the late filing of the TDS return/statements is regularised upon payment of the fee as set out in section 234E. This is nothing but a privilege and a special service to the deductor allowing him to file the TDS return/statements beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the Petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax


You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now


CCI Pro
CAclubindia's WhatsApp Groups Link


Similar Resolved Queries


loading


Unanswered Queries


CCI Pro


Follow us
OR add as source on Google news


Answer Query