2005 (12) TMI 223 - ITAT DELHI-E
Income-Tax Officer. Versus Television Eighteen India Limited.
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source ......
........... n under ESOS are perquisites under s. 17(2)(iiia) only from asst. yr. 2001-02. Since the financial years under consideration before us are financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, we hold that no benefits had accrued to the employees on account of participation in the scheme of ESOS. Accordingly, we hold that no tax was to be deducted at source in the financial years under consideration. Therefore, we agree with the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the question of levy of penalty under s. 271C does not arise. In view of the above, we uphold the orders of the learned CIT(A) to cancel the penalties of Rs. 22,90,050 for financial year 1998-99 and of Rs. 13,38,683 for financial year 1999-2000 for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and not for the reasons as mentioned by the learned CIT(A). 8. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Department for both the assessment years are rejected. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
2005 (11) TMI 363 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Rg. 3 Versus SMS India Ltd.
Penalty - For failure to deduct tax at source ......
........... t is important is the fact that the moment a person comes to know that he has committed a mistake and being a person of reasonable intelligence and ordinary prudence if he takes the corrective measures to rectify the same immediately, then it cannot be said that he acted deliberately with complete disregard to law. There is also considerable force in the contention of the assessee that non-recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer in the order under section 201(1) with regard to the fact that case is fit for levy of penalty makes the levy of penalty void ab initio. In view of above discussion and in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the findings of learned CIT(A) in his appellate order are in accordance with law and therefore, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A). Thus, all grounds of revenue in all appeals are rejected. 11. In the result, the revenue rsquo s appeals are dismissed for all years under consideration.
2005 (10) TMI 249 - ITAT JODHPUR
KAMAL INDUSTRIES. Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax.
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source ......
........... mpulsory. 9. In the given case the Form No. 15H were definitely not in the possession of the tax deductor on 31st March, 1999, when the credit of interest exceeding Rs. 2,500 was made in the accounts of some creditors. These forms were received only on 1st April, 1999, by the assessee-firm. But the plea of the assessee that in the earlier year also it followed the similar practice and no objection was raised by the Department and that the amount was not paid in cash it was only credited to the respective accounts. The Form No. 15H was received on the very next day i.e., on 1st April, 1999. The cumulative effect of all the above facts, in my view, creates a reasonable and sufficient excuse in assessee s favour. Therefore, the assessee has to be exonerated, The default is simply a technical one. Therefore, the penalty levied and confirmed in this case is cancelled and the only effective ground of this appeal is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal is disposed off accordingly.
2005 (10) TMI 224 - ITAT COCHIN
Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Trivandrum. Versus Muthoot Financiers.
........... ackdrop of the legal principles laid down in the precedents relied on by the assessee, in our considered opinion, assessee s explanation cannot be brushed aside as not a reasonable cause. In our considered opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly held that there existed reasonable cause for the assessee c for the non-compliance of the provisions of the TDS. Hence, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the assessee under section 271C. 13. The ld. DR has relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sree Krishna Trading Co. The facts of that case are totally different and there the issue before the Hon ble High Court was in respect of the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). Hence, the decision relied on by the revenue is not helpful to it. 14. In our considered opinion, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (Appeals) and we confirm his order. The Revenue s appeal stand dismissed. Order accordingly.
2005 (9) TMI 541 - ITAT DELHI
Aeroflot Russian International Airlines Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 49
Penalty - For failure to deduct tax at source ......
........... use, which is available in view of the provisions contained in section 273B of the Income-tax Act. This plea has been fully substantiated by the assessee and the explanation of the assessee deserved to have been accepted. The departmental authorities were, therefore, not justified in rejecting such plea, in imposing the penalty under section 271C. It may be observed that the imposition of penalty is not mandatory and in the cases, like the present case, there is no justification for imposing penalty particularly when the entire tax had been deposited and interest has also been paid by the assessee for delay in deducting the tax. 33. Thus, on consideration of totality of the circumstances and the relevant material on record, we set aside the finding of learned CIT(A) and cancel the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271C and so sustained by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the penalty stands cancelled. 34. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed.
2005 (9) TMI 497 - ITAT DELHI
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)
Deduction of tax at source, Penalty ......
........... untenable. The assessee had been following such method all along. So, it could not be said that the view was not correct or bona fide. The view was not bona fide when the assessee held out that tax was not deductible under sections 192, 194-I and 194J, particularly when tax under sections 194C and 194-I had been deducted by the assessee. The view taken by the assessee was a possible view, may be another view in this regard could have been entertained. 16. As such, just because the Assessing Officer nurtured a view, which was different from that adopted by the assessee, though, the view of the assessee was not out right mala fide and wrong, did not make penalty leviable under section 271C. That being so, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in cancelling the penalty. We hereby uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated, for statistical purposes as allowed, whereas appeal of the department is dismissed.
2005 (9) TMI 281 - ITAT NAGPUR
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
........... belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by statute. In our opinion, the aforesaid principle of law squarely apply to the facts of this case, if we examine the explanation offered by the Board/assessee for not depositing/deducting the tax deducted at source from the particular class of consumers. In our view, the explanation was bona fide and deserves to be accepted. In no case was it a case of deliberate concealment or was done with a view to evade payment of tax and putting the Revenue to loss. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that no penalty under section 271C is imposable on the facts and circumstances of the case of assessee. We hereby delete the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) for both the years under consideration and allow both the appeals filed by the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
2005 (7) TMI 63 - DELHI High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation.
The only question that fell for consideration before Tribunal was whether there was reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source u/s 192 in respect of the retention money paid outside the country to the Japanese expatriates working in India. The ......
2005 (5) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Sri Ram Memorial Education Promotion Society.
TDS - Once a person prescribed or concerned or the assessee has been subjected to a penalty u/s 271C, for not deducting the tax at source, there would not arise any occasion for levying a penalty under section 272A(2)(c) and 272A(2)(g) for non-compli ......
2005 (2) TMI 453 - ITAT DELHI
Income-Tax Officer. Versus GB. Morrision Travels (P.) Limited.
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source ......
........... ture. Out of aggregate amount of Rs. 7,14,37,140 shown as handling charges, how much was the amount to which provisions of s. 194H were applicable, is not shown in the penalty order. Was difference more than Rs. 49,25,931 admittedly paid as commission to sub-agents and on which TDS was admittedly deducted? If more, then what was that amount which was treated as commission and not merely book entry? Nothing is clear from the order imposing penalty of Rs. 1,79,374. If it is for short deduction of tax at source, then what is the amount on which there was short deduction and how much? The levy of penalty before answering above questions was not justified. This is another ground on which impugned order is sustainable. 11. In the light of above discussion, I hold that the Revenue authorities were not justified in imposing penalty on the assessee. The same has rightly been cancelled by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
2005 (1) TMI 609 - ITAT BANGALORE
Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer (TDS) -III
Deduction of tax at source, ......
........... parameters applicable to section 273A and cancels the penalty levied holding that reasonable cause existed. In that event, a case for reference under section 256(1) or (2) of the Act would not arise. Further reliance can be placed on Circular No. 276/201/95-IT(B), dated 29-1-1997, issued by the CBDT where it has been explained that if the due tax has already been recovered by the department, it would amount to sufficient compliance and no further liability should be raised under section 201(1A) of the Act. 9. In the present case, looking to the facts of the case, we find that the amount of tax was already paid by Wipro Ltd. Therefore, the ITO (TDS) raised nil demand against the assessee. That being the position, we are of the view that there was no reason for levy of penalty for the default. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties. 10. In the result, ITA Nos. 227 to 230/Bang./2002 are partly allowed and ITA Nos. 231 to 234/Bang./2002 are allowed.
2004 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT DELHI-B
Kinetics Technology (India) Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax.
Deduction Of Tax At Source ......
........... expatriate employee of assessee from bank inJapan. In view of these facts, after considering the relevant material, it was found that there was a reasonable cause for not depositing the tax in time on account of emoluments as tax was payable only on the amount was emoluments paid in India. 14. In the letter dated 6-3-2000 available at pages 4 to 10 of the paper book in para 6, it is mentioned that even the Department gave assurance that in view of voluntary compliance levy of penal provisions in case of Mr. Holt and Kinetics Technology (India) Ltd. would be considered sympathetically. In view of this assurance, a liberal view in the case of the assessee is required to be taken. 15. In view of the above and after considering the entirety of the material, we hold that penalty under section 271C is not leviable in the case of the present assessee. We, therefore, set aside the findings of learned CIT(A) and cancel the penalty. 16. In the result, assessee s appeal stands allowed.
2004 (12) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Senior Accounts Officer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board.
Penalty for Non depositing/deducting the TDS - if we examine the explanation offered by the Board/assessee for not depositing/deducting the tax deducted at source from the particular class of consumers. In our view, the explanation was bona fide and ......
2004 (5) TMI 53 - DELHI High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Itochu Corporation.
Penalty imposed under section 271C - failure to deduct the tax at source on payment made to employees outside India. – Tribunal was of opinion that there was a reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source on account of emoluments paid to the ......
2004 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Mitsui And Co. Ltd. And Another.
Penalty u/s 271C – non deduction of TDS - reasonable cause so shown and the explanation offered has not been considered on merits by the lower authorities while levying/upholding the penalty - lower authorities were rather highly influenced in lev ......