9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred by the Revenue are against the order dated 29.11.2013 of CIT (Appeals), Shimla. 2. In all these appeals the Revenue has raised the identical ground which is as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleing the demand of Rs. 1,10,718/-, Rs. 12,42,686/- and Rs. 7,79,270/- for the financial year 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively created u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961 tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee years as under:- Financial year amt. Penalty imposed u/s 271C 2008-09 1,10,718/- 2010-11 12,42,,686/- 2011-12 7,79,270/- Total penalty levied Rs. 21,32,674/- 4. On appeal, it was submitted that originally tax was not deducted but later on the demand of Rs. 1,10,418/-, Rs. 12,42,686/-, & Rs. 7,79,270/- was paid by the bank alongwith the interest as per direction of the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernance (SITEG), therefore, there was no question of levy of penalty. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eli Lilly And Company (India) Private Limited 312 ITR 225 (SC) 7. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that in the case of ITO v State Bank of Patiala (supra), it was held by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve decided that wherever various funds are being provided to various societies or trusts for specified schemes, that since funds belong to the Govt. and can be used only for the purpose of a particular project, there was no reason to deduct the tax because such Societies are being funded by the Govt. on 100% basis. The notification issued by the Central Govt. u/s 194A mentions various societies an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eli Lilly And Company (India) Private Limited has clearly held that if the assessee has a genuine belief that assessee was not required to deduct tax then penalty u/s 271C of the Act was not liable. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same. 9. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
