Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Eli Lilly & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. on 25 March, 2011
Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Eli Lilly & CO. Ltd. (supra), that if the assessee had a
bonafide belief that it was not required to deduct tax at source even if
the amount is held taxable lateron will not result in levy of penalty
under section 271C, we hold that no penalty under Section 271C
cannot be levied. Accordingly, the reasoning given by the CIT(A) for
deleting the penalty is upheld and the grounds taken by the
department are dismissed.
Saroj Kumar Poddar vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 May, 2000
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the
relevant findings given by the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer
and also perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact
that the assessee is a non-resident company having its principal place
of business at Honkong and the various Channel Companies are also
non-resident companies based in Honkong. Hence, the payment in
question is made by a non-resident company to a non-resident
company. In the return of income, while computing the taxable income,
the assessee has shown his taxable income and also claimed
deduction of the cost of advertising airtime procured from the Channel
Companies on principal-to-principal basis outside India. At the time of
filing of return there was a prevalent view of the judicial
pronouncement by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Shree
Kumar Poddar Vs. CIT, reported in 65 ITD 248 and commentaries
given in Kanga and Palkhivala. Thus, the assessee was under a
bonafide belief that no tax was deductible at source under section 195
with respect to transaction with the Channel Companies for advertising
airtime, since the companies were not taxable in India. It is also
undisputed fact that after passing of the assessment order under
Section 143(3), the assessee has deposited all the tax, the details of
which have been given at pages 11 to 12 of the impugned penalty
order. The basic charge of the Assessing Officer is that since the
assessee had not come before the Assessing Officer under Section
195(2), therefore, the gross amount was to be taxed. Even though this
14 ITA Nos : 6473/09,
6474/09 & 6475/09
was upheld by the CIT(A) and ITAT, however, it has been observed by
the ITAT that the issue involved is quite complex and is debatable.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012
Now in wake of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vodafone International Holdings(supra), one can say that the
assessee was definitely under the bonafide belief that there was no
requirement to deduct TDS on the payment made by a non-resident to
a non-resident under Section 195.
Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. ... vs Director Of Income Tax on 31 January, 2011
Even the telecasting of signals by
Satellite companies and location of ultimate viewership in India is not a
source of income in India or business connection in India, has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite
Telecommunications Co. Ltd.(supra). From all these judicial
propositions, which have been settled recently, we hold that there was
no liability to deduct tax and atleast one can say that there was a
bonafide belief and reasonable cause for non-deducting of tax on the
payments made to the Channel Companies under section 195.
6.1.
M/S Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 February, 2012
Ld.
Counsel further submitted that failure to make an application under
Section 195(2) does not render the gross amount taxable as held by
the Assessing Officer and this view is fully supported by the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology
Centre P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in 327
ITR 456.
1