Which cases are most cited on Section 221?

M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors. (159 Taxmann.com 444) — 42 citing judgments; Yashpal Sahni v. Rekha Hajarnavis (165 Taxmann 144) — 27 citing judgments; SBI v. DCIT, TDS, Kanpur (67 Taxmann.com 81) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 221?

BharatTax indexes 136 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 221 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.412

Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 412 (Penalty payable when tax in default) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 412 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 221 is M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors. (159 Taxmann.com 444), cited in 42 of the 136 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 221

M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors.

159 Taxmann.com 444 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a developer to a government body like Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for a development project are contractual payments, making them liable for tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Yashpal Sahni v. Rekha Hajarnavis

165 Taxmann 144 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

If a deductor deducts TDS but does not deposit it into the government account, the assessee is not liable for that TDS.

SBI v. DCIT, TDS, Kanpur

67 Taxmann.com 81 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 221

Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs. Ward 1, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Mr. Joseph Richard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT

Section 139Section 192Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

Ansal Housing Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 6795/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Senior DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

Ansal Housing Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 6794/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Senior DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

Anita Grover, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanmrs. Anita Grover, Vs. Ito, Ward 34 (5), Up-13, 1St Floor, Maurya Enclave, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi - 110 034. (Pan: Aappg0883L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupender Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2026 Date Of Order : 31.08.2026 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit-1, Hyderabad [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.02.2026 For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Holding The Appeal Before It To Be Belated & In Not Condoning Delay If Any, In Filing Of The Same. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming Findings In Intimation Order U/S.143(1), Wherein A Tax Demand Of Rs.29,517/- Had Been Determined As Against A Refund Due Of Rs. 54,600/-

For Appellant: Shri Rupender Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194Section 205

Sugandha Madhukar Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8007/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tamil Selvam S. (Sr. AR)

Section 140ASection 140A(3)

Mayuri Electronics Private Limited, Namakkal vs. DCIT Circle-1, Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4051/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.4051/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mayuri Electronics Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 171/1, Co-Operative Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Mohanur Road, Circle-1, Namakkal – 637 001. Erode. [Pan: Aaicm-3674-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250Section 68

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 153DSection 153D(1)(B)Section 220(2)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 276C(2)

Gomti Research and Pharmachem Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1517/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Suhana T.H.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 156Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 40a

Madan Lal Bhaskar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4416/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Madan Lal Bhaskar, Income Tax Officer, Jeevan Nagar, Sikka Enterprises, Vs. Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Aejpb6367A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Laxminarayan Mandir Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by revenue

ITA 5653/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Dcit (Exemptions) – 1(1), Mumbai Laxminarayan Mandir Trust 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Vs Ground Floor, Bapu Bhai Vasi Hill, Pedder Road, Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400056. [Pan: Aaatl2061J] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 221Section 221(1)Section 221(2)Section 254(1)Section 260A