2009 (3) TMI 636 - ITAT DELHI
Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-VI, Lucknow
Penalty - For failure to deduct tax at source ......
........... o laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26, the assessee could always claim bona fide and there is nothing unreasonable in such claim. 37. Looking to these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had reasonable cause in not adhering to the provisions of section 194A read with section 271C of the Act and the assessee rsquo s explanation being bona fide, was covered by section 273B of the Act. Under these circumstances, no penalty under section 271C of the Act was warranted. We, therefore, cancel the penalty under section 271C sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals) for all the years. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed by the learned Addl. CIT is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271C and allow all the four appeals filed by the assessee. 5. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Versus Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd.
TDS on salary paid in foreign country by foreign company to its employees working in India - S. 192(1) has to be read with S. 9(1)(ii) read with the Explanation. Therefore, if any payment of income chargeable under the head “Salaries” falls within S. ......
2009 (1) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) Versus M/s IKEA TRADING HONG KONG LTD.
Failure to deduct the taxes - penalty proceeding which was initiated by the issuance of the SCN on 26.06.1999 was not in the course of any other proceeding but, was independent of any proceeding - Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty imposed ......
2008 (9) TMI 115 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) Versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Salaries - Free meal coupons – taxability as perquisite within the rule 3(7) (iii) – deduction of tax at source - coupons were not utilized by employee for purchasing meals at an eating joints but were mis-used to purchase grocery items, cosmetics it ......
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 ......