Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
