What is the leading case on Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act?

Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT (132 Taxmann.com 293) is the decision most relied on for Section 221(1), cited in 33 judgments. The tax department cannot speculate to deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer to the petitioner.

Which cases are most cited on Section 221(1)?

Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT (132 Taxmann.com 293) — 33 citing judgments; Asst. CIT v. Om Prakash Gattani (242 ITR 638) — 18 citing judgments; Smt. Ansuya Alva v. DCIT (278 ITR 206) — 11 citing judgments; Peak Estates Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT v. Dadu Vala & Co. (108 ITR 882) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 221(1)?

BharatTax indexes 31 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 221(1) is Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT (132 Taxmann.com 293), cited in 33 of the 31 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 221(1)

Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT

132 Taxmann.com 293 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The tax department cannot speculate to deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer to the petitioner.

Asst. CIT v. Om Prakash Gattani

242 ITR 638 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Smt. Ansuya Alva v. DCIT

278 ITR 206 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

Peak Estates Ltd 183 ITR 471 Kerala Jaipur Electro Pvt Ltd 183 ITR 476 Rajasthan CIT v. Dadu Vala & Co.

108 ITR 882 · 1977 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 221(1)

KARTHIK LAKSHMAN,CHENNAI vs. IYO, INTL TAXATIONWARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2182/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2182/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2024-25

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 250

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 504/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4564/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4563/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4562/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4561/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4560/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4558/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

FIROZ ALAM,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(3)(3), SAHARANPUR

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

ITA 346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalfiroz Alam, Income Tax Officer, Quila Nawab Ganj, Ward-3(3), Saharanapur. Chakrata Road, Vs. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001. Pan-Afspa9199P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10273096 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment Was Reopened On The Basis Of The Information That Assessee Has Made Transaction Of Rs. 94,76, 190/- With A Company Who Was Indulged In Purchases & Sales Only On Papers Without Actual Moment Of Goods. Accordingly, The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued After Obtaining The Approval From The Competent Authorities. During The Firoz Alam Vs. Ito Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessee Never Appeared Nor Filed Any Reply Before The Ao And, Therefore, The Ao Proceed To Complete The Assessment Exparte By Making The Addition Of Rs.94,76,190/- As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Towards The Purchases Made From Two Parties.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 69C

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SAMA RAMACHANDRA REDDY L/R BY HIS WIFE SAMA YASHODHA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SAMA RAMACHANDRA REDDY L/R BY HIS WIFE SAMA YASHODHA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1065/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

NARESH KUMAR,BALACHAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR, NAWANSHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 59/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 250

SATISH KUMAR JAIN,PROP. M/S JAIN INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 563/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito बनाम/ Vs. H No 579 Airport Road Panama Chowk Rani Bagh, Jammu-180003 Jammu-180004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpj-6598-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)– Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-08- 2024 Confirming Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 221(1) Vide Order Dated 29-06-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 19-12-2016. The Assessee Declared Income Of Rs.9.75 Lacs. The Assessee Claimed

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)– Ld. Sr DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 80I

ABDUL HAKIM MOHAMED YUSUF,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

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

ITA 977/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 977/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Hakim Mohamed Yusuf, Income Tax Officer, 75, Sathiyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Salem – 636 015. Salem. [Pan:Bngpm-2255-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 221(1)