9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- In the absence of an contrary material placed on record by the Revenue and in view of the fact that the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee, virtually the basis for imposition and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not available. penalty deleted - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 6181/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2012 - SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, SHRI RAJEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. counsel for the assessee submits that in this case the A.O. has imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of payments made to non-resident amounting to Rs. 34,86,947/- without deducting tax thereon. He further submits that the Tribunal in the quantum appeal of the assessee, however, deleted the same very addition made by the A.O. vide order dtd. 24-6- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of services/research material/advertisement media. Since the assessee company did not deduct tax at source from the payment remitted to Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd., the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of the said payment was disallowed by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 40(a) of the Act which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). However, on second appeal before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
