Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.74 seconds)

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvii ... vs Cadbury India Limited, Northern Region ... on 28 March, 2011

26. Following the same ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we hold that in case of payments on which the assessee had deducted the tax at source under section194C of the Act and merely because the debate was whether the provisions of section 194J are attracted or not and even if the stand of the Assessing Officer was such, does not make the assessee exigible to levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act and hence the same is deleted.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008

5. The assessee was also issued show cause notice under section 271C of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee pleaded that the short deduction/non deduction under various heads was suo motu acknowledged by them so it does not attract the penal provisions. The Additional CIT, TDS, Pune observed that the defaults were noted only during the survey action which was conducted at the premises of the assessee and during post survey proceedings. The suo motu compliance by the assessee was held to be not correct. The plea of the assessee that the default occurred due to oversight and was a bonafide mistake was also not accepted by the Additional CIT. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), the Additional CIT held that it was difficult to accept the plea that error was bonafide. In the absence of the assessee justifying any reasonable cause for non deduction of tax at source, the assessee was held to be at default to deduct tax at source and penalty under section 271C of the Act was levied at Rs.8,81,818/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 1355 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next