Search Results For: 221(1)


CIT vs. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act

Reading Section 221 in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that the aspect of default in payment of tax and the amount of interest payable are treated as distinct and separate components. The section categorically and specifically states that when an Assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax, he shall in addition to the amount of arrears and the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220, be liable, to pay penalty, however the amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The terminology “default in making a payment of tax and amount of interest payable” are considered to be separate for imposition of penalty and penalty is to be levied on account of default in making a payment of tax. However, the total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The said penalty for non payment of the tax is in addition to the levy of interest under SubSection 2 of Section 220. Under no principle of interpretation, the arrears of tax as laid down in the said Section would include the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220. The amount of penalty will have to be restricted on the arrears of tax, which would not include the interest component charged under Section 220(2) of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Reliance Industries Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1985-86, 1987-88
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: Penalty for failure to pay TDS in time can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily pays the TDS. Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization are not good excuses. The fact that CIT(A) decided in favour of the assessee & deleted the penalty does not necessarily mean that two views are possible

Parliament treats a person who has deducted the tax and fails to pay it to revenue as a class different from a person who has not deducted the tax and also not deposited the tax with revenue. This is for the reason that in the first class of cases the assessee concerned after deducting the tax, keep the money so deducted which belongs to another person for its own use. In the second class of cases, the assessee concerned does not take any advantage as he pays the entire amount to the payee without deducting any tax and does not enrich itself at the cost of the government. Therefore, although penalty is also imposable in the second class of cases, yet in view of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, it is open to such assessee to satisfy the Assessing Officer that as they have good and sufficient reasons no penalty is imposable. It is in the above view that in the first class of assessees the Parliament has provided for prosecution under Section 276B of the Act for failing the pay the tax deducted at source

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DCIT vs. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221(1): Penalty cannot be levied for non-payment of S. A tax if the assessee has financial hardship

The assessee claimed that it was having meagre cash and current balances and was in financial constraints during the year under consideration. If there is financial hardship to the assessee it has to be considered as sufficient cause in which event penalty cannot be levied

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal