Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The ITAT set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under sections 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in US Technologies (2023), the Tribunal held that section 271C penalties apply only to failure to deduct tax at source, not to delayed remittance of TDS already deducted. The SC had noted that penalty provisions must be interpreted strictly, with CBDT Circular No.551 confirming this position. Regarding penalties under section 272A(2)(g) for delayed filing of TDS returns, the Tribunal found these were incorrectly imposed as section 271H was the applicable provision during the relevant period. The appeal was allowed and all penalties were set aside.
The ITAT set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under sections 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in US Technologies (2023), the Tribunal held that section 271C penalties apply only to failure to deduct tax at source, not to delayed remittance of TDS already deducted. The SC had noted that penalty provisions must be interpreted strictly, with CBDT Circular No.551 confirming this position. Regarding penalties under section 272A(2)(g) for delayed filing of TDS returns, the Tribunal found these were incorrectly imposed as section 271H was the applicable provision during the relevant period. The appeal was allowed and all penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
