REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K. Nirai Mathi Azhagan Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KUNNATHAT THATHUNNI MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS UPPALAPEDA VENKATARAMIAH COROMANDAL AGRO PRODUCT AND OIL LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CITY CORPORATION OF CALICUT VS. THACHAMBALATH SADASIVAN [REFERRED TO]
SIRSILK LIMITED CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. TEXTILES COMMITTEE:TEXTILES COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT VS. MURUGAN FINANCING CORPORATION COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED INDIA GLYCOLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ECOLOGY VS. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE [REFERRED TO]
B S E BROKERS FORUM BOMBAY VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANG BOARD OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SONA CHANDI OAL COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition challenges the vires of Section 234 (F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(2.) Section 234 (F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reads as under:-

(3.) The above said Section is sought to be challenged on the ground that it is a penalty guised as a fee and secondly, there is no service provided for by the authorities and therefore, fee is not leviable for the simple reason that for levy of fee, there should be an element of quid pro quo. Petitioner, relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KUNNATHAT THATEHUNNI MOOPIL NAIR, ETC., Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER {(1961) 3 SCR - 77}, more particularly, paragraph 8, and the same reads as under:-

Click here to view full judgment.

K. NIRAI MATHI AZHAGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address