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 thats 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 ......
2007 (3) TMI 417 - ITAT DELHI
Income-tax Officer, TDS Ward 50(4), New Delhi Versus Magic Software (P.) Ltd.
Penalty - For failure to deduct tax at source ......
........... sessee regarding bona fide belief that provisions of section 194-I of the Act are not attracted to payment of hire charges. Under clause 15 of the agreement for hire it has been specifically mentioned that the applicable provisions for tax deduction at source would be section 194C and that the same is agreed on the basis of the legal advise. The respondent had been deducting tax at source on the hire charges paid under the hire agreement at the agreed rates. All these cumulative facts go to show that there was a bona fide belief entertained by the respondent. Such bona fide believes constitute reasonable cause. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed was rightly cancelled by the CIT (Appeals). We find no grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT (Appeals). All these appeals by the Revenue, are dismissed. 8. In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue, are dismissed. ------------------------- In favour of assessee.