<?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>2017 (11) TMI 907 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351028</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for delayed deduction of TDS. It was ruled that the delayed payment of TDS, caused by negligence and unawareness, did not constitute a default in compliance. As the appellant eventually deposited the TDS amount, albeit late, the penalty for delayed deduction was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:38:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 907 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351028</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for delayed deduction of TDS. It was ruled that the delayed payment of TDS, caused by negligence and unawareness, did not constitute a default in compliance. As the appellant eventually deposited the TDS amount, albeit late, the penalty for delayed deduction was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>