Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
