Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs Asian Petro Products & on 11 June, 2013
Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.,
(supra) also applied to the case of the assessee-company.
Merely because the assessee-company had claimed deduction
of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment
which was not accepted by the Revenue, by itself, would not
attract the levy of penalty. Mere disallowance of interest for
non-deduction of TDS by itself may not be a ground to levy of
penalty against the assessee-company. Moreover, the A.O. in
the assessment order has initiated the penalty proceedings for
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the
penalty order, the A.O. levied the penalty for concealment of
income within the meaning of Explanation-1 to Section
271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The A.O. did not initiate the penalty
proceedings for concealment of income. Explanation-1 to
Section 271(1)(c) would apply in the case of concealment of
income and not in the case of furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of income. Therefore, there is a contradictory
findings given by the A.O. in the assessment order as well as
in the penalty order. Merely because the assessee-company
13
ITA.No.1704/Del./2016 M/s. Netambi
Value First Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010
In support of this contention, he has relied upon decision
of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom
Communication Pvt. Ltd., (supra).
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 44AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd on 26 August, 2015
Mahindra Bank Limited. It was, therefore, submitted that no
penalty could be levied. It was also submitted that in view of
insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(i)(a), the assessee-
company may not be treated as assessee-in-default of not
deducting tax at source because the interest was paid to other
reputed NBFC companies by net banking and they are bound
to file their return of income under section 139 of the I.T. Act.
Since the payee has paid the tax, therefore, assessee-company
may not be deemed to be an assessee-in-default. The
assessee-company relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark
Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del.). It was submitted
that assessee-company made true and full disclosure,
therefore, no penalty be levied.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad Iv vs Vishal Madhusudanhai ... on 18 March, 2014
fresh unsecured loan obtained from Banks and NBFC. The
Auditor has given details of TDS in the audit report but the
Auditor who audited the accounts of the assessee-company
did not point-out any infirmity on account of non-deduction of
TDS on the amount of interest paid to the Banks and NBFC,
otherwise, all the relevant accounts were produced before A.O.
The Auditor, therefore, did not point-out the TDS default to
the assessee-company. It is not in dispute that payment of
interest made to Bank and NBFC were genuine and not
excessive or unreasonable interest was found. These facts
clearly show that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of income. The A.O. levied the penalty merely
because of non-deduction of TDS on interest payments.
Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel
for the Assessee in the cases of ITO vs. Shri Vishal
Madhushdnanhai Chokshi and CIT vs. M/s. Venus Engineers
(supra), applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. It
is a case where disallowance is made because of non-
deduction of TDS. Therefore, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
12
ITA.No.1704/Del./2016 M/s. Netambi
Value First Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
1