Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Pharma Co. TDS Error: Tribunal Revokes Penalties, Emphasizes Bona Fide Compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus JCIT, New Delhi</h3> The Tribunal found that the pharmaceutical company's failure to deduct TDS was unintentional and promptly rectified, with no malafide intent. Referring to ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non-deducting and non-depositing the TDS - Held that:- Omission for non-deduction of the TDS was not intentional rather due to bonafide mistake as immediately after pointing out by the tax auditors, TDS was deposited by the assessee company out of its own pocket without collecting it from the deductee. Assessee company has even deposited the TDS even before deduction made by the revenue authorities. So, we are of the considered view that it was a reasonable cause for the assessee company not to deposit the TDS within time. Furthermore, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been passed without declaring the assessee in default by passing order u/s 201(1) of the Act. So, when AO has not recorded his satisfaction for initiation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the order required to be passed u/s 201(1) of the Act, the penalty order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10.Analysis:Assessment Year 2008-09:The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, challenged the penalty order passed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The Assessing Officer found that the company had not deducted TDS amounting to Rs. 72,959 as required. The company argued that TDS was deducted and deposited immediately after objections raised by the tax auditor. The penalty was imposed despite the company's explanation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading the company to appeal before the Tribunal.Assessment Year 2009-10:Similar to the previous year, the company contested the penalty order passed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for not deducting TDS amounting to Rs. 49,996. The company maintained that TDS was deducted post the tax auditor's objections. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirmed it, prompting the company to approach the Tribunal.Factual Background:The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both assessment years. The company had failed to deduct and deposit TDS as required by law. The company claimed the omission was due to a clerical error, rectified promptly upon the tax auditor's advice. The company deposited the TDS before any default declaration by the Assessing Officer under section 201 of the Act.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal noted that the non-deduction of TDS was unintentional and due to a bona fide mistake, rectified promptly by the company. The Tribunal found no malafide intent or negligence on the company's part. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal held that voluntary payment of tax, even with delay, does not constitute malafide. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty orders were unsustainable. Therefore, the penalties of Rs. 72,959 and Rs. 49,996 for the respective assessment years were deleted, and the appeals by the company were allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of bona fide mistakes and voluntary compliance in tax matters, leading to the deletion of penalties imposed on the pharmaceutical company for non-deduction of TDS.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found