The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds, Mumbai v. M/S. Ims Ship Management Ltd
High Court
27 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds, Mumbai v. M/S. Ims Ship Management Ltd
Date of order
27 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds, Mumbai v. M/S. Ims Ship Management Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS,Mumbai..............Appellant. VersusM/s. IMS Ship Management Ltd. ........Respondent.
Mr. Avinash D. Kango, APP for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
CORAM :BILAL NAZKIandS. S. SHINDE, JJ.DATED :27TH JUNE, 2008.
P.C.:
Penalty was levied on assessee on account of delay in issuing TDSCertificate. It was not disputed that the tax deducted was duly paid to theGovernment account and there was no loss to the revenue. The Tribunalfound that delay in issuance of TDS Certificate was technical default andreduced the penalty which was imposed in terms of Section 272(A)(2). Thequestion has been framed in the appeal to suggest that there is no discretionwith the authority to reduce the penalty under Section 272(A)(2) as theSection lays down that a penalty of Rs.100/- per day during the failurecontinues.
2.We have, however, found that submitting delayed TDS Certificate doesnot fall within any of the clauses (a) to (l) of Section 272(A)(2). Therefore,in our view, under this provision no penalty could have been imposed uponthe assessee. As such no question arises. The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(S. S. SHINDE, 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.