https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767139 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties under sections 272A(2)(g) and 271C. Following SC precedent in US Technologies, the tribunal held that section 271C penalty applies only to failure to deduct TDS, not delayed remittance after deduction. The SC noted penalty provisions must be read strictly, and CBDT Circular 551 confirmed no penalty for belated TDS deposit. For delayed TDS returns, the tribunal found section 272A(2)(g) was incorrectly applied as section 271H governed such defaults in the relevant year. Both penalties were deemed unsustainable and deleted. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:33:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767139 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties under sections 272A(2)(g) and 271C. Following SC precedent in US Technologies, the tribunal held that section 271C penalty applies only to failure to deduct TDS, not delayed remittance after deduction. The SC noted penalty provisions must be read strictly, and CBDT Circular 551 confirmed no penalty for belated TDS deposit. For delayed TDS returns, the tribunal found section 272A(2)(g) was incorrectly applied as section 271H governed such defaults in the relevant year. Both penalties were deemed unsustainable and deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767139