Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
