Your question shows some misconceptions, I guess: if the alternative to

passing an object as parameter

is to create a new instance directly in the constructor PassTheObjectHere, then you are obviously not using any values/state of the previously created obj within PassTheObjectHere. If that is the case, it is pretty useless to pass obj as a parameter to PassTheObjectHere. In fact, in such a case I would typically check if TheObject has any member variables, which might make it a candidate for a static class (but don’t get me wrong, I am not telling the usage of a static class would improve the design here in any way).

On the other hand, if the constructor of PassTheObjectHere needs the values / state of the previously created obj to work properly, it would be plain wrong to have a constructor like this.

 PassTheObjectHere()
 {
      var obj = new TheObject();

      // ... do something which expects having obj
      // ... some values provided by the caller
 }

(I hope this is obvious).

can passing the object too many times cause some bad effects on the program?

This is not a question of “too many times”. One can pass objects around 1000 times correctly, which is fine, and one time wrong, which is bad. For example, if one passes obj to the constructor, and the constructor changes the state of obj in a way the caller does not expect (called a “side effect”)

  PassTheObjectHere(TheObject obj)
  {
       // ... use methods/properties/values of obj 
       // ... for this constructor

       // and finally
       obj.MakeValuesInvalid();
  }

and the caller does something like

public class ClassWithTheObject
{

   TheObject obj = new TheObject();
   obj.Initialize()
   PassTheObjectHere anotherObj = new PassTheObjectHere(obj);
   obj.MethodWhichExpectsObjToBeValid();
}

then the program now has a bug.

Fortunately, one can use one of the following alternatives to protect oneself from that:

1. Avoid the side effect by not changing “obj” within the constructor
2. If one needs to change “obj”, they can make a copy beforehand within the constructor.
3. Avoid adding methods to TheObject which allow the change of internal state of obj (which is called “immutability”)

Number 3 leads to the same code as 1, but with additional protection against introducing unintentional side effects at a later point in time, when PassTheObjectHere might be changed.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

Firstly, understand the tradeoffs. If you are going to pass a copy of the object (essentially “pass by value” semantics) rather than a reference to the original object, you are going to take a performance hit. Whether that hit is justified or not depends on your software’s functional requirements.

Secondly, it might make more sense semantically to write methods that accept the object by reference but return a new object, rather than modifying the passed object in-place or making a copy of it before passing it to the method.

var modified object = ReturnANewObjectFrom(theOriginalObject);

When you create and return new objects in this fashion, you are taking advantage of immutability. Wherever immutability makes sense, this makes sense to do. Programs which utilize immutable objects and data structures are easier to reason about, especially when writing concurrent applications (applications that do more than one thing at a time, usually in separate threads or on separate cores).

I think it really depends on the context you are working with. In your example, you are sending the TheObject instance to the PassTheObjectHere constructor, this way of working tells me that, inside your PassTheObjectHere instance, you are working with some previous initializated data. So if the ClassWithTheObject is going to share the conversational state of the TheObject instance, you are doing right. Thats what i think