<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71000</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act for failure to deduct income-tax at source and submit the annual return under section 206. The penalty was revised to Rs. 19,978 from Rs. 52,300 imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the separate obligations of tax deduction and submission of statements, stating that the statement under section 206 must be filed regardless of tax deduction. The absence of a fixed Principal Officer for a Partnership Firm was addressed, allowing any partner to be considered the Principal Officer. The penalty was upheld due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with tax requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71000</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act for failure to deduct income-tax at source and submit the annual return under section 206. The penalty was revised to Rs. 19,978 from Rs. 52,300 imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the separate obligations of tax deduction and submission of statements, stating that the statement under section 206 must be filed regardless of tax deduction. The absence of a fixed Principal Officer for a Partnership Firm was addressed, allowing any partner to be considered the Principal Officer. The penalty was upheld due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with tax requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>