2016 (3) TMI 723 - ITAT CHENNAI
A One Logistica Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range-I Chennai
Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - assessee could not upload the quarterly statement in respect of the tax deducted at source - contention of the assessee is that PAN of some of the deductees is not available - Held that - When the assessee deducted tax and paid the same to the Government account, mere failure to upload the quarterly statement as required u/s 200(3) of the Act will not result in levy of automatic penalty. Of course, it is statutory function of the assessee to upload the quarterly statement as required under the statutory provision. The fact remains that unless the PAN of the ded ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Jaihind Projects Ltd. Versus The Addl. C.I.T., Ahmedabad
Penalty u/s.272A(2)(k) - Tax Collection at Source (TCS) - Held that - The assessee was not aware of the provisions of TCS deduction and deposit and filing of quarterly returns. The assessee first came to know upon survey on its business premises and thereafter immediately deposited TCS along with interest and thus, it is technical and venial breach of provision causing no loss to Revenue. We are therefore of the considered view that the penalty levied u/s.271A(2)(k) cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be deleted. A.O. is directed accordingly. - Decided in favour of ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 689 - ITAT MUMBAI
M/s. Weatherguard Aircon Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
Penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) - delay in filing TDS statements - Held that - Undisputedly, it is a fact on record that there is a delay in filing TDS statements in respect of all the four quarters as far as Form no.24Q is concerned and as far as statements in Form no.26Q is concerned, there is a delay in filing the TDS statement in respect of quarter 2, 3 and 4. On a perusal of the details of filing of TDS statement, it is seen that the delay is substantial ranging from almost one year to about two years. It is also relevant to note that on a specific query from the bench it was sub ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 185 - ITAT DELHI
Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Versus Joint Director Income Tax (Inv.)
Penalty under section 272A (1) (c) - non-compliance of the notice u/s 131 - Held that - Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the taxing statute. In the present case, when the assessee is able to establish that the account books were produced during assessment proceedings, however with some delay, then it is a technical/venial breach of the provisions of the Act and penalty cannot be held as correct and justified. - It is also relevant to ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 545 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Syndicate Bank Versus Addl. CIT (CIB) , Hyderabad
Penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) - CIT considered the non-submission of information as willful default and levied penalty - default in issuing notice - Held that - There is no need for levy of penalty in the given cases. First of all, the notice issued u/s. 136 is a general notice asking for information which is not in the domain of the ITO, CIB. The CBDT itself has prescribed certain limits for calling for information and Income tax Act also prescribes various limits for furnishing information on a regular basis from the banks in annual returns. The details asked in various codes is neither prescribed ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 180 - ITAT HYDERABAD
ACIT (TDS) , TDS Circle 1 (1) , Hyderabad. Versus Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Others
Penalty under section 272A(2)(k) - failure on the part of the assessees to file the quarterly returns of TDS in Form 24Q and 26Q for the year under consideration - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - Assessee has not furnished the relevant details and documents to support and substantiate the case of the assessees that the delay on the part of the concerned deductees in furnishing details resulted into the delay in filing the relevant TDS returns by all the assessees. He however has contended that the assessees are in the position to produce all these relevant details as well as documenta ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 332 - ITAT DELHI
M/s. Modipon Limited, Ghaziabad Versus Additional CIT (TDS) , Ghaziabad.
Penalty order under sec. 272A(2)(k) - as a result of survey/verification exercise carried out by the ITO(TDS), serious default on TDS payment were unearthed - assessee had not filed e-TDS return in form No. 24Q, 26Q and 27EQ and also could not provide any reasonable cause for such to furnish the e-TDS returns by the due date - whether penalty order barred by limitation? - Held that - FAA for the assessment year 2006-07 on similar issue held that legally the limitation starts from the issue of first notice by the Addl.CIT(TDS) competent authority dated 25-02- 2010. The penalty has been imposed ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 166 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Central Scientific Instruments Organization Versus The JCIT (TDS) , Chandigarh
Penalties under section 272A(2(k) - reasonable cause mising - Held that - The assessee has miserably failed to prove if there was any reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law. In the absence of any cause to explain delay in filing of the TDS returns within the time prescribed in law, we do not find any error in the ord ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 894 - ITAT CHENNAI
The Executive Engineer (O & M) TANGEDCO, Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Penalty u/s. 272A (2)(k) - not filing the TDS returns in time for all the four quarters of F.Y. 2010-11 - Held that - In the present case the assessee had deducted TDS from the payment and paid it to the Government treasury. The assessee was required to file return as per section 200(3) of the Act which the assessee failed to do. This had attracted levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act. The assessee has explained the reason for failure to file return of TDS as required, that the work was handled by few staff who were changed on transfer. There is no finding by the lower authorities that th ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 753 - ITAT CUTTACK
State Bank of India Versus JCIT (TDS) , Bhubaneswar
Penalty U/s.272A(2)(k) - whether appellant has not deliberately and consciously deposited the TDS amount in time? - Held that - We do find that the penalty so levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) appears to be leaning more on holding assessee in default for such penalty as a mechanical/ automatic levy insofar as it is the Department itself, who has insisted the e-filing of such returns as late as making the assessee literate about the data to be uploaded on the basis of tax deducted at source already given credit to by the I.T. Department on the basis of TDS certificates furnis ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 758 - ITAT KOLKATA
State Bank Of India Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
Penalty u/s 272A(2)(K) - delay filing the TDS return - Held that - In the present case of the assessee, either Government bodies or aided by Govt., are public office and since the tax deduction and payment are made by treasury and there is undisputedly no default. There arises, no reason for non-filing of TDS return with an intentional act or willful act to attract a quasi-criminal, imposition of penalty. The assessee has relied on the decisions of CIT Vs. Superintendent Engineer 2002 (5) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN High Court and Royal Metal Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Asst CIT 2010 (1) TMI 938 - ITAT, Mu ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 430 - ITAT CUTTACK
N.K. Media Ventures (P) Ltd. Versus JCIT (TDS) , Bhubaneswar
Penalty imposed u/s. 272A(2)(k) - e-TDS statements filed much later than the due dates - Held that - Period for levying the penalty has to be counted from the date of payment of tax because the delay in filing the return till the date of payment of tax is already explained on the ground that the assessee could not pay the taxes for which separate penal provisions exist. The assessee has also explained the reasons for not paying the tax to the Central Government in time which was because of financial difficulties. The assessee has filed the copies of P & L account and balance sheet to subst ....... - .......
2015 (1) TMI 102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III Versus SOUTH GUJARAT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS
Effect of amendment to section 272A(2) w.e.f. 1.10.91 - Penalty for default towards filing of TDS return - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty levied u/s 272A(2) (c) should be restricted to the amount to tax deductible at source by treating the amendment to the said provision as being clarificatory in nature Held that - The Tribunal rightly observed that the quantum of penalty must be determined by reference to the law as it stood when the offence or default was committed - the amendment brought about is purely procedural in nature providing for the machinery for having ....... - .......
2015 (1) TMI 299 - ITAT MUMBAI
M/s. Dhariwal Films Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS)
Addition su/s 68 - Burden to prove - cash credit - genuineness of creditors Held that - The assessee furnished before CIT(A) certain details relating to the loan creditors for each of the year under consideration - In the remand report, the AO has pointed out that there were differences between the details so furnished and the Balance Sheet of the assessee - it was pointed out by the AO that the Statement of accounts claimed to have been obtained by the assessee from the creditors have been signed by the director of the assessee company - CIT(A) has also noticed that the assessee has failed to ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 930 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addl. CIT(TDS) Mumbai Versus M/s. Karrox Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Penalty under section 272A(2)(c) - delay in filing quarterly returns - Held that - There is a delay in filing quarterly returns but at the same time the delay was due to the reason that initially the staff was not familiar with new e-TDS filing system. The delay occurred due to unawareness of technical application of electronic filing of return but still fact remains that due tax was duly deposited in the Government exchequer and there is no loss to the Revenue. The year under consideration was the first year of submitting TDS statement in electronic form for the corporate assessee which was m ....... - .......