Section 200A(1)(c)

Section 200A(1)(c) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 200A(1)(c), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Conceria International P Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  CPC has charged s.234E fee in a s.200A intimation for TDS quarters going back to 2010-11. My consultant says the Karnataka High Court struck that down. Does that help me in Tamil Nadu?
  No. The Madras High Court set the Karnataka view in Fatheraj Singhvi against the Gujarat view in Rajesh Kourani, expressly declined to follow Karnataka, and held that s.234E is itself the substantive charge — it bites the moment the statement is late and does not wait for the s.200A(1)(c) machinery inserted on 1 June 2015. The waiver-rejection order was left standing, but the Court decided no separate question about a power of waiver.
• Sajeev Mathew and Company v ITO (TDS), Kochi High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  I have a single consolidated s.234E demand covering 2011-12 right through to 2021-22. Can the old part be knocked out, and can I do it by writ?
  In Kerala, yes. The High Court quashed the demand notice to the extent it charged fee under s.234E for the period from 2011-12 up to 1 June 2015, holding that the insertion of clauses (c) to (f) in s.200A(1) took effect only from that date and is prospective. The rest of the demand was left standing.
• Rajesh Kourani v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  Is there High Court authority that the s.234E fee runs from 1 July 2012 whatever the 2015 amendment to s.200A did, and does paying the fee buy me out of s.271H penalty?
  Yes on the first, no on the second. The Gujarat High Court held that s.234E is the charging provision and s.200A merely machinery, that a machinery provision cannot override a charging provision, and that even before 1 June 2015 the Revenue could always calculate and collect the fee. It also held, against Karnataka, that the s.234E fee is not in lieu of the s.271H penalty — the two are independent levies.
• Kooud Software P Ltd v DDIT (CPC) - TDS ITATHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The CIT(A) has confirmed my pre-June-2015 s.234E fee by following the Gujarat High Court, even though my jurisdictional High Court has decided the other way. Is the Tribunal bound to follow my own High Court?
  Yes. The Bangalore Bench held that the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi is the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, and deleted the s.234E fee for all nine quarters, notwithstanding that the CIT(A) had preferred the Gujarat High Court's contrary decision in Rajesh Kourani. The fee under s.234E cannot be levied without the machinery provision of s.200A.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.