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

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 271C


Income Tax

Cases for Section: 271C
Showing 46 to 60 of 82 Records

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.



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


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.

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.

Penalty ......

........... 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.

Penalty ......

........... 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.



what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More Options

Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.