Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Sencma Sa, France on 22 March, 2006

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) ... on 25 February, 2019

Mrs. Sonal Shah & Mrs. Tarulata Shah 9 ITA Nos. 6462, 6463, 6464 & 6465/Mum/2018 As far as the tax deductible from the payment to non-resident of Rs.8.87 crore is concerned, the Ld. counsel submits that tax is deductible in terms of section 195 in the case of non-resident only in respect of other sum chargeable under the Act. In the present case, the sellers had already offered the sale price for taxation by investing the money in capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under the head 'long term gain' and the tax paid thereon in accordance with law were duly filed before the CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Sencma SA, France (2007) 288 ITR 76 (Del), CIT v. Elililly& Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanha Vanaspati Ltd. vs Additional Cit, Range-50 on 29 June, 2007

18. Learned AR of the assessee had relied on various decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on non-deduction of tax at source; in respect of the payments made outside India to expatriates working in India are distinguishable on facts from the facts of the case before us. In the cases of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn. (supra); Sencma Sa France (supra); Hitachi Ltd. (supra); Itochu Corpn. (supra) and Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered the issue relating to payment of salary outside India to expatriate working in India. In these cases, the Tribunal recorded a finding of the fact that there was a reasonable cause for not making deduction under Section 192 as there was confusion as to whether the payment made outside India was to be taken into account ford eduction of tax at source under Section 192 of the Act. It was after issue of circular the assessee started deducting tax at source and therefore there was a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that payments made abroad were not taxable in India. The facts of the case before us are entirely different from the facts decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and therefore the decision rendered in these cases will not be of any help to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Prithvi Information Solutions ... vs Assessee on 8 August, 2014

In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. SA Builders, 288 ITR 1. It was submitted that when the mistake committed in the auditors report in Form No. 3CEB came to the notice, the same was corrected and a revised audit report was submitted before the AO. Further, referring to the computation of interest made by the AO, the learned AR submitted that in certain cases, the AO has computed interest for more than 12 months, which could not have been done. In this context, he referred to the computation of interest made in tabular form by the AO at page 3 of the assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ddit (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai vs Dhl Operations B.V., Netherlands, ... on 17 May, 2017

7.8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sencma SA, France 288 ITR 76 (Delhi) has held that penalty u/s.271C cannot be imposed where the tax was not deducted at source on salary paid to expatriate employees since assessee was under bonafide belief that he was not liable to deduct tax at source. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bacardi Martin India Ltd.,288 ITR 585 (Delhi) has held that penalty u/s.271(I)( c) cannot be levied in a case where in the revised return filed subsequently on the basis of appellate order claim of loss was reduced and only the claim of expenditure was disallowed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that concealment inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. To attract penalty u/s.271(I)(c ), it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. From merely a difference of opinion for allowing or disallowing the expenditure, it cannot be said that the assessee had intention to conceal of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pyramid Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 12 August, 2009

The learned counsel also relied on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SA Builders, 288 ITR 1, according to which, if an advance is made for reasons of commercial expediency, disallowance of interest cannot be made even if there is nexus between the borrowal and advance to the sister concern out of the borrowals. He further submitted that the transfer of work- in-progress and machinery to its sister concern on a subcontract basis is a transaction dictated by commercial expediency because the assessee could make very little profits by executing the work itself in last year. He pointed out that there was no advance of funds by the assessee to NEC because it was only an account transfer. The learned counsel submitted that having assessed the income under the head business, the AO contracted himself in holding that there was no business done by the assessee. He allowed the entire expenditure on administrative overheads and personnel overheads and the bank charges of Rs. 1,31,425/-, which are all business expenses.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds) vs Eli Lilly And Co. I.P. Ltd. on 8 November, 2006

In CIT v. Sencma SA, France [2006] 288 ITR 76 (Delhi) : [2006] 156 Taxman 403 another Bench of this Court had given its imprimatur to the decision of the Tribunal which had deleted the penalty in a similar factual matrix, viz., failure to deduct tax at source in respect of employees working in India who were paid salaries in India as also in France. Our learned brothers had held that since confusion was prevailing on this issue, imposition of a penalty was wholly misplaced. We would hasten to emphasise that a failure to deduct tax or to pay tax should not inexorably lead to initiation of penalty proceedings. Imposition of interest may be an adequate recompense.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1