JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the primary issue of default under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was decided in favour of the assessee by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty under section 271C was not leviable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under section 271C by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied for alleged failure to deduct tax at source on software license purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271C is leviable when the underlying default under Section 201(1) has been deleted. The applicability of Section 273B was also considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271C,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 9(1)(vi),Section 273B,Section 248
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-13, Pune, dated 20.05.2015 relating to assessment year 2007-08 against levy of penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no penalty u/s 271C is leviable. 2. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no penalty u/s 271C is leviable despite holding that tax and interest u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) was correctly levied by the AO.
2 ITA No.1079/PUN/2015 Tata Technologies Ltd.
On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the section of 273B despite the fact that the recourse was available to the assessee u/s 248 of the Act.
The appeal filed by Revenue is against deletion of penalty levied under section 271C of the Act. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in holding that no penalty under section 271C of the Act was leviable despite upholding charge of tax and interest under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue on merits has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of assessee and the assessee has been held not to have defaulted under section 201(1) of the Act and consequently, interest charged under section 201(1A) of the Act has been deleted. Hence, no merit in levy of penalty.
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly accepted that the issue on merits has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.04.2018 in the case of assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The limited issue which arises in the present appeal is in respect of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act. The assessee was held to have defaulted in deduction of tax at source on purchase of software licence as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Assessing Officer thus, held the assessee to be in default and charged tax under section 201(1) of the Act and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.
3 ITA No.1079/PUN/2015 Tata Technologies Ltd.
The Tribunal in ITA No.1433/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2007-08, vide order dated 05.04.2018 held the assessee not to have defaulted in non-deduction of tax at source out of payment made for purchase of software from different entities. Consequently, the Tribunal held the assessee not to be in default under section 201(1) of the Act and also that there was no merit in charging interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. Once the demand under section 201(1) of the Act and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act has been deleted, then there is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act. The CIT(A) however, decided the issue on merits whether penalty under section 271C of the Act is leviable even if the assessee is held to be in default under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in this regard. However, since the dispute has been decided in favour of assessee, there is no merit in holding the assessee to be in default. We thus, dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 27th April, 2018. GCVSR
4 ITA No.1079/PUN/2015 Tata Technologies Ltd.
आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-13, Pune; The CIT (IT/TP), Pune; 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 271C
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2), MumbaiITA 5318/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2) Mumbai…ITA 5281/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026