TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delayed TDS remittance after staff maternity leave, 'reasonable cause' u/s278AA accepted; prosecution u/s276B quashed.</h1> In prosecution for offence under s.276B r/w s.278AA of the Income-tax Act for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source, the dominant issue was whether ... Offence punishable u/s 276B r/w Sec.278AA - accused are running an education institution at Coimbatore and are liable to deduct tax at source in respect of expenditure covered by the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - significant failure on the part of accused to pay the tax deducted at source to the Government account within the time limit as required under law - respondent raised objections stating that the delay is caused in paying the tax amount As decided by HC [2024 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] admittedly, the fact reveals that there is a delay on the part of petitioners and they have subsequently remitted the tax amount and delay is not caused wantonly, but only due to the concerned staff left the concern on maternity leave, the delay was caused. As subsequently rectified and thereafter, they have deducted the tax amount properly and remitted the same without any delay. So, on seeing the conduct of petitioners, the proceedings initiated against them is liable to be quashed. HELD THAT:- We see absolutely no reason to interfere in the order passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. Issues: Whether this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with the High Court's order.Analysis: The petition challenges the High Court's order under the Court's jurisdiction under Article 136. The Supreme Court considered the reasons presented for interference and found no grounds sufficient to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside or modify the High Court's decision. The Court also addressed procedural aspects by condoning delay before disposing of the petition.Conclusion: The petition under Article 136 is dismissed; there is no interference with the High Court's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
