2015 (10) TMI 1745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER PER BENCH The appeals preferred by the Revenue are against the order dated 29.11.2013 of CIT (Appeals), Shimla. 2. In all these appeals the Revenue has raised the identical ground which is as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleing the demand of Rs. 1,10,718/-, Rs. 12,42,686/- and Rs. 7,79,270/- for the financial year 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act and accordingly levied penalty for three years as under:- Financial year amt. Penalty imposed u/s 271C 2008-09 1,10,718/- 2010-11 12,42,,686/- 2011-12 7,79,270/- Total penalty levied Rs. 21,32,674/-   4. On appeal, it was submitted that originally tax was not deducted but later on the demand of Rs. 1,10,418/-, Rs. 12,42,686/-, & Rs. 7,79,270/- was pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 194A were not applicable to the H.P. Society for Promotion of IT & E Governance (SITEG), therefore, there was no question of levy of penalty. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eli Lilly And Company (India) Private Limited 312 ITR 225 (SC) 7. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that in the case of ITO v State....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(f) talks about particular types of institutions. The reason for this is that Govt. might have decided that wherever various funds are being provided to various societies or trusts for specified schemes, that since funds belong to the Govt. and can be used only for the purpose of a particular project, there was no reason to deduct the tax because such Societies are being funded by the Govt. on 100....