<?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>2002 (8) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11502</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to file the annual TDS return under section 272A(2)(c) is not automatic and must be imposed only after a judicious assessment of all relevant circumstances. Where tax was deducted and deposited on time and the delay was found to be for reasonable cause, a bona fide breach or inadvertent office mistake may justify only a nominal penalty rather than a routine penal levy. The authority should also give an opportunity to comply through notice or reminder before proceeding with penalty where appropriate. On the facts found, the token penalty was upheld and the issue was answered in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11502</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to file the annual TDS return under section 272A(2)(c) is not automatic and must be imposed only after a judicious assessment of all relevant circumstances. Where tax was deducted and deposited on time and the delay was found to be for reasonable cause, a bona fide breach or inadvertent office mistake may justify only a nominal penalty rather than a routine penal levy. The authority should also give an opportunity to comply through notice or reminder before proceeding with penalty where appropriate. On the facts found, the token penalty was upheld and the issue was answered in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>