Case Law Details
CIT (International Taxation) Vs Gracemac Corporation (Delhi High Court)
This Court is in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that Section 271(1)(c) penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there is no question of penalty being levied.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16 November, 2020 passed by Delhi Bench of the ITAT (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.947/Del/2012. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“14. On the aspect of interest under Section 234B, Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. GE Packages Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 0065 (Delhi). In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi preferred and followed that Sec. 195 put an obligation on the payer i.e. any person responsible for paying any amount to a nonresident to deduct tax at source at the rates in force from such payments, thus, entire tax is to be deducted at source, which is payable on such payments made by the payer to the non-resident, that if the said payer has defaulted in deducting tax at source, the Department can take action against the payer under the provisions of Section 201 of the Act and compute the amount accordingly; that in such a case, the non-resident is liable to pay tax but there is no question of payment of advance tax; and that, therefore, assessee is not liable to pay interest under Section 234B on account of default of the payer in deducting tax at source from the payments made to the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the decision in Jacabs Civil Incorporated (supra) relates to the AY 2001-02.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
