Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The High Court considered a case involving non-payment/belated remittance of TDS u/s 276-B of the Income Tax Act. The issue centered on defining "reasonable cause" for the delay in remittance. The Petitioners demonstrated that they promptly remitted the TDS upon receiving fee reimbursements, mostly for students under a government scheme. The Court noted that penalties u/s 271C do not apply for mere belated remittance. Reference was made to Section 201(1A) and Section 276B consequences. Prosecution u/s 276B is subject to Section 278AA, requiring proof of reasonable cause for delay. The Court found the Petitioners' explanation valid, ruling in their favor and negating the need for criminal prosecution.
The High Court considered a case involving non-payment/belated remittance of TDS u/s 276-B of the Income Tax Act. The issue centered on defining "reasonable cause" for the delay in remittance. The Petitioners demonstrated that they promptly remitted the TDS upon receiving fee reimbursements, mostly for students under a government scheme. The Court noted that penalties u/s 271C do not apply for mere belated remittance. Reference was made to Section 201(1A) and Section 276B consequences. Prosecution u/s 276B is subject to Section 278AA, requiring proof of reasonable cause for delay. The Court found the Petitioners' explanation valid, ruling in their favor and negating the need for criminal prosecution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
