New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Two companies in different states Import of Service i.e. Payment to architect of Dubai for construction of House in India Service Tax Payment on GTA Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence Necessity of RD 23 D Export goods from other manufacturer Payment Made in Wrong Code TDS Payment done 94C instead of 94J Service tax on transport of coal to bio power plant

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 271C

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 271C
 
Showing 31 to 45 of 77 Records
 

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 ......

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.

2007 (3) TMI 416 - ITAT DELHI

Income-tax Officer , Ward 49(3), New Delhi Versus Cargo Linkers

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

........... ntelligence and ordinary prudence. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead an ordinary, prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned to come to the conclusion that the same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, would the prescribed consequences follow. 6.2 Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed was rightly cancelled by the CIT (Appeals). There was a reasonable cause for the respondent rsquo s failure to deduct tax at source and consequently the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer were rightly cancelled by the CIT (Appeals). All the appeals by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed. 7. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, are dismissed.

2006 (11) TMI 238 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A

Rakesh Chauhan. Versus Deputy Director Of Income-tax (International Taxation).

Payment To Non-Residents ......

........... s an assessee in default under ss. 201 and 201 (1A) of the Act. The assessee gets relief accordingly. 6. Now we take up assessee s appeal in ITA No. 753/Mum/2009. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal, however, the sole grievance is against the learned CIT(A) has confirming the action of the AO in levying penalty of Rs. 4,41,618 under s. 271C(1) of the Act. The impugned penalty is levied for assessee s alleged failure of deducting tax at source under s. 195 from payment made to Shri Paramjit Singh towards purchase of land. 8. Since we have quashed the impugned tax withholding demand and held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under ss. 201 and 201(1A) r/w s. 195 of the Act, levying of penalty under s. 271C(1) of the Ad must also be deleted. The very cause of action of this penalty does not survive any longer. The appeal is thus allowed. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above.

2006 (9) TMI 175 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.

Liability to deduct TDS - Contract - Tribunal is right in law in considering supply of printing and packaging materials as a contract for sale and not a service/works contract – hence there was no liability of assessee to deduct tax at source – Trib ......

2006 (7) TMI 107 - DELHI HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING

In case deductor fails to deduct tax at source, the deductee only would be liable to pay income tax on the amount received by him as income – Hence revenue is not justified to seek to levy interest for any period after the date on which the tax is ac ......

2006 (3) TMI 106 - DELHI High Court

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Japan Radio Company Limited.

Respondent did not deduct the tax at source on the salaries paid to the expatriate employees outside India and thereby committed a default of its obligation under section 192 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act were initiate ......

2006 (1) TMI 541 - ITAT DELHI

BT. Technet Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Range-49, New Delhi

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

........... for which commission was paid to M/s. Vineet Estates Private Limited by the assessee-company was finalized to the satisfaction of the principal company, i.e., M/s. FIITJEE Limited on or before 15-5-2001 which was prior to 1-6-2001, the date of applicability of the provisions of section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, the assessee-company was required to pay M/s. Vineet Estates Private Limited consolidated commission of 12 per cent of the gross amount received as initial payment from the franchisees introduced through him. No material could be brought on record by the revenue to show that the payment from M/s. FIITJEE Limited was not received by the assessee on 15-5-2001. Therefore, in our considered opinion the ld. Jt. CIT was not justified in levying penalty of Rs. 3,06,000 on the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,06,000. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

 
   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.