Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast
High Court
27 Nov 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast
Date of order
27 Nov 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/527/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Tds) v. M/S Serko Plast, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Appeal raises the following question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) who has passed the order deleting and reducing the penalty imposed u/s.272(1) (g) and restricting it to the extent of tax deducted at...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD.) NO.700 OF 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD.) NO.700 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income tax(TDS) ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Seika Plast ..Respondent.
Mr.A.D. Kango for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006.
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Appeal is taken up on board for admission.
Heard Mr.Kango for the appellant. None for the
respondent. Appeal raises the following question of
law:-
" Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, the Tribunal is right in upholding the
order of CIT(A) who has passed the order deleting
and reducing the penalty imposed u/s.272(1) (g) and
restricting it to the extent of tax deducted at
source ?
respondent-assessee did not issue the TDS certificate in time. Therefore, penalty was imposed. Section 272 A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act provides that where a
person concerned fails to furnish the certificate, he
shall have to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs.100/-
per day during which the failure continues. The
proviso, however, limits the amount to the tax deducted
at source or collected. This is what the Tribunal has
done and restricted the penalty to Rs.13,393/-. The
Tribunal has followed the law correctly. No reason to
interfere.
3. Appeal is dismissed.
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.