New User / Register | Annual Subscription | SMS Option | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
Tax Management India .com
             
TMI - Tax Management India. Com

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 271C

 

Income Tax

Cases for Section: 271C

Advanced Search options

Showing 31 to 45 of 84 Records
 

2008 (8) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Failure to deduct tax at source – AO dropped penalty l without giving any reasons –CIT in revision hold that order of AO is prejudicial to interest of revenue – CIT hold that AO should have gone into facts of the case before disposing penalty proceed ......

2008 (4) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

AO concluded that penalty is not leviable - no reasons given by AO – CIT found that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - order passed by the Assessing Officer should be a self-contained order giving the relevant fac ......

2008 (4) TMI 182 - DELHI HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Failure to deduct tax at source – but assessee paid the required interest without disputing its liability – AO passed an order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) treating the assessee as being in default – held that acceptance of liability will not by itself exten ......

2008 (3) TMI 385 - ITAT PUNE-B

L & T John Deere (P) Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Failure To Deduct Tax At Source ......

........... as given a bona fide explanation for its failure to deduct tax at source, and as such, the assessee should not be made liable to penalty leviable under s. 271C for failure to deduct tax at source on the amount payable on account of deferred liability of L and T Ltd. 17. Moreover, the question as to whether the discount of Rs. 129.90 crores availed by the assessee can be considered to be the payment in the nature of interest contemplated under s. 194A also appears to be a debatable one, and thus the confusion existed in relation to the assessee s obligation to make deduction of tax at source can be considered to be a reasonable cause for the assessee not to make such deduction of tax at source, and consequently, the penalty under s. 271C may not be attracted. 18. In the result, the penalty levied under s. 271C by the AO and further confirmed by the CIT(A) for all the years under consideration stands deleted. 19. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

2008 (3) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Mitsubishi Corporation

Appropratio of amount paid in excess - Assessee has paid Rs. 52.79 crores in 1998 towards TDS for the period 1988-89 to 1997-98. Later the final liability was determined lower than this amount - Appropratio of excess amount by the assessee can not be ......

2008 (2) TMI 661 - ITAT DELHI

Income-tax Officer, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Versus ABN Amro Bank

Penalty - For failure to deduct tax at source ......

........... e to be made under the provisions of section 194C, 194J or 194H. Even though such opinion was available, the assessee had decided to err on the side of caution and had deducted TDS under the provisions of section 194C. It is also noticed that the DSAs are not falling within the persons who have been notified under the provisions of section 44AA or 194J. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee has acted in a bona fide manner on the basis of the opinion obtained from the Counsel and the question as to whether TDS is liable to be deducted on the payments made to the DSAs is not free from doubt. Consequently, we are of the opinion that there is reasonable cause in the assessee not deducting TDS under the provisions of section 194J and consequently, the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the purpose of cancelling the penalty are on sound footing and the same is confirmed. 5. In the circumstances, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

2007 (12) TMI 186 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAYASAKTHI BENEFIT FUND LTD.

Deposits in cash exceeding the prescribed limit - explanation offered with reference to the deposits received by the assessee has been accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and also by the Tribunal - There is no material available on ......

2007 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT , JHARKHAND

OMEC ENGINEERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Penalty -Alleged that assessee had received more than permissible amount u/s 269SS in cash and accordingly penalty imposed - Held that there is genuine reason for accepting the cash and accordingly penalty set aside ......

2007 (9) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Preeti Aggarwala

Penalty – Assessing officer initiating penalty proceeding against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) – Held that assessee under bona fide belief that she is entitle to file retun in a manner in which she did that’s why not entitle for penalty ......

2007 (8) TMI 200 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY

A SHENOY AND CO. AND OTHERS Versus ND KADAM, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS

Offences and prosecution - Revenue alleged that assessee-firm committed an offences by not deducting tax at source while interest payment to creditors and liable for prosecution u/s 276B but assessee contended that after change of law failure to dedu ......

2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

Warehousing charges – whether warehousing charges are in the nature of renting and TDS is deductible u/s 194- instead of u/s 194-C. Once tax is paid by the deductee assessee – no demand is sustainable. However, interest liability still required to b ......

2007 (7) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SPINNERS P. LTD.

Assessee had repaid some of the share application money which it had received earlier in cash – assessee plea is that amount received is only for the purpose of allotment of shares and it is not a deposit or loan, is acceptable – no interest paid on ......

2007 (6) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus VISWAPRIYA FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES LTD.

Non deduction of TDS – assessee was under bona fide belief that tax is not required to be deducted - Tribunal has given a finding that there is a reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source - Hence, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the ......

2007 (6) TMI 144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LS LAKSHMANASWAMY

Penalty – AO imposed penalty on assessee u/s 271B of the Act for not providing any sufficient cause for belated filing of the audit report but rejected by the tribunal on the ground that there is reasonable cause for filing the report belatedly – Tri ......

2007 (4) TMI 178 - DELHI HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) Versus ASIAN HOTELS LTD.

Penalty – Tribunal in his order held that no employer-employee relationship sustained between assessee and expatriates and per diem payments made by assessee to his employer instead of expatriates, hence penalty on ground of non-deduction of tax at s ......

 
   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new




© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.