2016 (5) TMI 22 - ITAT DELHI
M/s Modipon Limited Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) , Ghaziabad
Rectification of mistake - rectification of the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) seeked - Held that - what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. The order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 stood modified by the subsequent order passed u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. Therefore, in our opinion, no separate adjudication is required with reference to the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013. To that extent, the present appeals filed by the assessee which have originated from the order u/s 1 ....... - .......
2016 (5) TMI 96 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (Formerly Known as Vodafone South Ltd.) Versus Addl. CIT (TDS) , Range-2, Hyderabad
Stay - Penalty under section 271C - tds u/s 194H - whether the assessee is required to make any TDS under section 194H is pending adjudication before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India as divergent views have been expressed by various High Courts in India? - Held that - The appeals on merits are coming up for hearing before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the month of April, 2016 and taking due note of the same, this Tribunal has already granted stay of collection of the outstanding tax demand under section 201(1) and the interest thereon under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act after also taking no ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 818 - ITAT AGARA
Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Dayalbagh, Agra Versus The JCIT, (TDS) , Kanpur
Penalty under section 271 C - failure to deduct tax on payment made on account of salary - Held that - In FY 2008-09 the assessee was found to have failed to deduct tax on payment made on account of salary amounting to ₹ 1,54,072/-. Subsequently an order under section 154/201(1)/201(1A) was passed stating that since the entire amount had either been paid by the deductees or was not required to be paid by the deductees after claiming relief under section 89 of the Act, the entire demand raised on the assessee was deleted and only interest on account of delay in payment of TDS was levied u ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 496 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
The Land Acquisition Collector Versus Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Surat
Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of tds u/s 194LA - Held that - The assessee had paid compensation to the land owners but has not deducted the tax u/s 194LA of the Act from such payments as the assessee was under bona fide belief that he was not under any obligation to deduct the tax u/s 194LA of the Act. - The omission on the part of the assessee was inadvertent and there was no mala fide intention. For non-deduction of TDS and delay in filing the TDS, the assessee had paid interest of ₹ 33,480/- and also paid interest of ₹ 54,923/- determined to be payable u/s 201(1A) of the Act ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT
Commr. Of Income Tax-XVIII, Delhi Versus Bank Of Nova Scotia
Penalty u/s 271C - Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source - reasonable cause - ITAT and HC deleted the penalty levy - Held that - In the present appeals we are concerned with levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the cae of M/s. Itochu Corporation (2004 (5) TMI 53 - DELHI High Court) and CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 2004 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI High Court wherein held as reasonable cause as ....... - .......
2016 (5) TMI 69 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)
Penalty under section 271C - failure to deduct tax - Held that - In the present case, we find that the assessee has not been treated as an assessee-in-default as per section 201 of the Act and is, therefore, neither liable to deduct nor pay any tax as per Chapter XVII-B. In such circumstances, we find that the question of levy of penalty under section 271C does not arise. - In view of the same we find no merit in the contention of the learned Departmental representative that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source. Further, we hold that in lieu of the provisions of ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 910 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Versus M/s Air Liquide India Holdings
Failure to deposit TDS deducted from the salary received by the expatriate employee outside India - penalty u/s 271C - Held that - In the present case, in light of the factual findings of the ITAT that there was nothing brought on record by the Department to show that the Respondent had been intimated by the expatriate employees about the remuneration received by them from ALF, it is held that the Respondent could not be held to be an Assessee in default and no penalty under Section 271C of the A ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 680 - ITAT MUMBAI
ADIT (IT) , 4 (1) , Mumbai Versus Leighton Welspun Contractors P. Ltd.
Penalty u/s Sec. 271C - non deduction of tds on five foreign remittances u/s 195 - (i) Engineering and Draughting services provided by AEC. - (ii) Payments for purchase of shrink wrapped software (i.e. standard computer software) - Held that - It is noted that there is huge controversy on this issue, and therefore, assessee placed reliance on the judgments which were in its favour including the judgment of Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Tata consultancy services 2004 (11) TMI 11 - Supreme Court . It is noted by us that various High Courts and benches of the tribunal have taken contradict ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 116 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s. Height Insurance Services Ltd.
Penalty u/s. 271C - failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt. account - short deduction of TDS u/s. 194D of the Act treating the payments as contractual receipts u/s. 194C - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that - The assessee has made payments treating the same as contractual payments in lieu of the agreement after obtaining opinion from the advocate. There is no dispute that the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C of the Act for contractual payment on the basis of the opinion of advocate and this is also not under dispute that the deductions were required to be made by the assessee u/s. 194D o ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 2108 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Cosmos Carrying Pvt Ltd
Penalty levied under S.271C - non deduction of TDS - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that - The provisions of S.271C are subject to the provisions of S.273B of the Act. As per S.273B of the Act, no penalty shall be leviable under the sections mentioned therein, if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure under the said provisions. - In the present case the assessee has submitted an explanation for the defaults alleged against it, and even a perusal of the orders under S.201(1) and 201(1A) make it clear that the Assessing Officer has summarily raised the demands. ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 630 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA (PEC)
Penalty levied under section 271C - assessee had not deducted tax at source under section 194A on interest payment - Held that - As per the provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) no tax is to be deducted at source on income by way of interest which are credited or paid to such other institutions, association or body which the Central Government may notify in this behalf in the special gazette. For the purpose of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) Notification No. S. O. 3489 dated October 22, 1970, lists a number of undertakings which includes any undertaking or body including a society registered under th ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 179 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s Srinivasa Civil Works (P) Ltd Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Penalty levied u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS from the payments made to creditors for expenses, unpaid labour charges, job work charges, transport charges, labour charges and royalty payments - Held that - Assessee in the present case has given explanation before the authorities below that the due to circumstances prevailing and under bonafide belief that tax was not required to be deducted at source U/S.194C on the payments in question. Moreover, no such issue was made out by Revenue in A.Y. 2002-03, in which year assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 1060.04 lakhs as against ₹ 948.09 ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 1029 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Trichy. Versus M/s. Amarvathy Textiles
Non-deduction of TDS for payment of product designing charges outside India for services rendered outside India - Held that - The services rendered by the non-resident agent can at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services , we are the firm view that Section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the case on hand and consequently, Section 195 of the Act does not come into play. In view of the above finding, the decision of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. case, 1999 (8) TMI 2 ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 989 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income tax (TDS) , Jaipur & anr. Versus M/s. Radha Swami Communication
TDS liability - payments made to Channel Providers u/Sec. 194C OR u/Sec. 194J - whether ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in holding that the payments made by the assessee to Channel Providers were liable for deduction of tax at source u/Sec. 194C and not u/Sec. 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the said issue was not before them and the assessee has only assailed the penalty ? - Held that - We find merit in the arguments of counsel for the appellant-revenue that the ITAT was not required to decide whether the amount paid was liable to be deducted u/Sec. 194J or 194C b ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 2321 - ITAT HYDERABAD
ACIT (TDS) , TDC Circle 1 (1) Hyderabad Versus Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, East Zone, Hyderabad
Penalties u/s 271C - Non deduction of TDS u/s 194C from the payments made to the contract workers - Held that - the issue relating to the assessee s liability to deduct tax at source from the similar payments made to contract labourers had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the earlier years and the same was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee concuding the allotment of work by the assessee to the SHGs is not by way of contract but is engagement of workers for a fixed period. The workers are being paid as per the agreed terms and conditions a ....... - .......