penalty proceeding
This query is : Resolved
20 November 2008
i got a assessment order passed for my client in which the A.O. has disallowed rs 350000/- on account of Non deduction of
TDS and added back this amount as income on which tax is to be paid, similarly he has initiated a penalty proceeding against the company under section 271(1)(c),as the payment on which the amount on which tds has not been deducted was not intentional,it was paid to our contractor on the basis of Debit note sent the company,as was making deduction on the same while making payment to the transporter directly,can there be a ground or case law to qoute that when once tax has been deducted by the contractor the liability to deduct tax does not arise on the company. kindly help me out with this situation
TDS and added back this amount as income on which tax is to be paid, similarly he has initiated a penalty proceeding against the company under section 271(1)(c),as the payment on which the amount on which tds has not been deducted was not intentional,it was paid to our contractor on the basis of Debit note sent the company,as was making deduction on the same while making payment to the transporter directly,can there be a ground or case law to qoute that when once tax has been deducted by the contractor the liability to deduct tax does not arise on the company. kindly help me out with this situation
20 November 2008
In the instant case, the disallowance is purely technical in nature. Due to nondeduction of tax, the disallowance has arisen u/s40(a)(1). Once the tax is deducted in the subsequent year, the amount which was disallowed shall get allowed.
Further Sec271(1)(c) comes into play, only when there is a "concealment" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". In your case, neither there is concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars, hence invoking penalty u/s271(1)(c) may not be in order.
Further Sec271(1)(c) comes into play, only when there is a "concealment" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". In your case, neither there is concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars, hence invoking penalty u/s271(1)(c) may not be in order.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Tax Audit Applicability – Newly Formed Partnership Firm with Profit Below 6%/8%
- Unregistered suppliers utility
- Difference between Date of Payment and Date of Deduction?
- TDS CREDIT MISMATCHING
- Buy back of shares u/s69
- ADDITION OF CHALLAN IN TDS RETURN FORM 140
- URGENT-Eligible leaves being shown as 24 days for 3 years Articleship instead of 156 days in 108
- FCRA 6 E- Intimation
- Bank details not Visible on Traces Portal
- Taxability of Partnership firm for FY 2025-26
- CALCULATION OF DEFFERED TAX - OP BL IS DTL & CURRET IT DTA
- LLP audit under companies act
- Experienced CA recommendation from Kolkata for FNO return filing
- Interest Reporting in Form 168
- Sales of goods of amount Rs77 lakhs to a party
- Tax Demand of ₹4,650 for AY 2026-27
- Concept of Vendor and customner reconciliation
- Mistake in e-invoice identified after 24 hours
- EXPORT PAYMENT
- NRI ITR2 account in 2025-26.
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
