CIT v. Sencma SA, France

288 ITR 76High Court2007#24244 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sencma SA, France

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…ellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under the head ‘long term gain’ and the tax paid thereon in accordance with law were duly filed before the CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Sencma SA, France (2007) 288 ITR 76 (Del), CIT v. Elililly& Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC). Further, it is stated that in most of the cases, the appellant had not claimed deduction u/s 40(a)(iii) in computation of their ‘business income’ and it was one more reason for not imposing the penalty u/s 271C because by not claiming deduction u/s 40(a)(iii), higher corporate…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…ellers showing amount paid to them having been offered by them under the head ‘long term gain’ and the tax paid thereon in accordance with law were duly filed before the CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Sencma SA, France (2007) 288 ITR 76 (Del), CIT v. Elililly& Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC). Further, it is stated that in most of the cases, the appellant had not claimed deduction u/s 40(a)(iii) in computation of their ‘business income’ and it was one more reason for not imposing the penalty u/s 271C because by not claiming deduction u/s 40(a)(iii), higher corporate…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dhl Operations B.V., Netherlands, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e lead to the conclusion of concealment on the part of the assessee. Where a plausible explanation is .. offered and the explanation is not found to be false, penalty cannot be imposed. 7.8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sencma SA, France 288 ITR 76 (Delhi) has held that penalty u/s.271C cannot be imposed where the tax was not deducted at source on salary paid to expatriate employees since assessee was under bonafide belief that he was not liable to deduct tax at source. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bacardi Martin India Ltd.,288 ITR 585 (Delhi) has held that penalty u/s.271(I)(…