Income tax penalty u/s 271c
WebC.Penalty for failure to collect tax at source u/s 271CA Failure to collect the whole or any part of the tax under the provisions of Chapter XVIIBB. Penalty of the sum equal to the amount of tax which was failed to be collected shall be payable . Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. CA Anil Sathe WebMar 24, 2009 · In fact in the orders passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, they have been mentioning “Initiate Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (C) of the I T Act” by default on additions/disallowances done without providing any reasons irrespective of whether the assessee really tried to conceal his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his …
Income tax penalty u/s 271c
Did you know?
WebNov 19, 2015 · Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that a specified percentage of Tax is required to be deducted by the payer at the time of making certain payments to the payee. …
WebSep 7, 2024 · 3.Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of Rs.4,60,000 was levied vide order dated 26/04/2024. 4.On appeal CIT (A) deleted the Penalty on the sole ground taken regarding … Web1 day ago · The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was served on the assessee on 22.09.2016. The Assessing Officer(AO) passed assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 The AO has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order the Assessee had filed appeal …
WebApr 12, 2024 · Even the CBDT has decided to impose no penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS, and no penalty is contemplated under Section 271C for delayed remittance, payment, or deposit of the TDS. The court stated, asserting the CBDT’s Circular No. 551 dated January 23, 1998. The assessee was not required to pay … WebApr 12, 2024 · Supreme Court Held. The Supreme Court held that section 271C (1) (a) is applicable in case of a failure on the part of the assessee to “deduct” the whole or any part of the tax as required under the provisions of the Act. The words used in Section 271C (1) (a) are very clear, and the relevant words used are “fails to deduct.”.
Web3 hours ago · 6. Thus, from the above, it is evident that non-specification of the limb of the notice would render the penalty proceedings invalid. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the orders of the authorities below holding that notice u/s 271 (1) (c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter.
WebApr 11, 2024 · Further, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271C of the Act i.e. penalty for failure to deduct tax at source and subsequently order was passed levying a penalty equivalent to the amount of TDS. Aggrieved by such penalty order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT (A) however, the same was dismissed by CIT (A). scully storeWebJan 3, 2024 · Assessee had furnished complete details as regards its claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB (4) of the Act, thus merely for the reason that the said claim of deduction … pdf ge dishwasher garbage disposalWeb1. confirming penalty of Rs.1,81,00,765 u/s. 271C of I. T. Act, 1961. 2. confirming the above penalty on the ground that the eventhough the appellant had claimed that the parties to whom payments were made had paid the taxes whereever applicable in their individual capacity, the appellant had not submitted any documents in support of the same. scullysudburyWebAug 3, 2024 · The plain reading of section 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax act 1961 clearly states as follows “Concealment of particulars of income or fringe benefits or furnishing of … pdf generated by _newgen_sivams_WebApr 11, 2024 · 11 April 2024 3:15 AM GMT. The Supreme Court has ruled that no penalty is leviable under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on mere delay in remittance of … scully streetWebAug 3, 2024 · The plain reading of section 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax act 1961 clearly states as follows “Concealment of particulars of income or fringe benefits or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or fringe benefits” and levies penalty of minimum 100% as a fine and maximum 300% of tax sought to be evaded in addition to tax payable. scully street gameWebApr 11, 2024 · The Supreme Court in this case was considering whether the appellant was liable for penalty u/s 271C even though there was mere delay in payment as the provisions of Section 271C dealt with penalty for failure to deduct the tax and not delayed payment of tax. ... 271C and 273B of Income-tax Act,1961: Counsel(s): Counsels : Dowload Pdf File ... pdf ged math practice test with answer key