9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking, having its Registered Office at Vadodara, Gujarat. The assessee filed its return of income on 06.05.1996 for the A.Y. 1996-97. Assessment scrutiny was undertaken and it was noticed that the assessee had distributed gift coupons to its employees, which was not disclosed in its return and therefore, there was short deduction of tax. 3. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed. Pursuant to the order u/s.201(1) of the Act, penalty u/s.271C of the Act was levied upon the assessee. 4. Against the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the above aspect of the case and committed serious error in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. B.S. Soparkar learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assesseeCorporationd is a large scale Public Sector Undertaking paying huge amount of tax in terms of deduction from salary of its employees. The assesseeCorporation will never have the malafide intention to avoid TDS on the paltry sum of gift coupons. There is no incident in the past to indicate that the assesse Corporation, in any way, avoided the payment of TDS. 7.1 Learned counsel submitted that the assessee was under a bona fide impression that the gift coupons are not in lieu of salary an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of hoardings, advertisement, celebration and company's resolution. Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said that the assessee had suppressed or withheld any information in order to avoid tax. 10. In Commissioner of Incometax v. Eli Lilly and Co. (I) P. Ltd. case (supra), the assessee was a joint venture company between EL, Netherlands, a foreign company and R, an Indian Company. It was engaged in manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products in India. The foreign partner had appointed four expatriates to the assessee in India. Only part of their aggregate remuneration was paid in India by the assessee. It was found that the total remuneration paid was only on account of services rendered in India and no work was performed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
