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 159 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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.412

Section 221(1) falls under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(1) is Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT (132 Taxmann.com 293), cited in 33 of the 159 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

An assessee cannot be denied the credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) if they produce Form 16A, and any demand notice issued under Section 221(1) for non-payment of tax, when TDS credit is due, cannot be sustained.

Smt. Ansuya Alva v. DCIT

278 ITR 206 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 205 of the Income Tax Act prevents the tax department from demanding tax from an assessee who has already suffered TDS when the liability has shifted to another entity, such as a liquidator.

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)

Cms Ditl Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5278/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221(1)

Abc Marine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2246/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm Income Tax Appeal No.2246/Mum/2015 ( Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Abc Marine Pvt. Ltd., 101 Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Mumbai-20 K. Building, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. : Aahca 5671 M /Revenue By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad Shri Hari Raheja /Assessee By : Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2016 O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Mumbai, Dated 23-12-2014, For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Penalty Levied U/S.221(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Date of HearingFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 221(1)

Vinay Vikram Oberoi, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)4, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7157/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vinay Vikram Oberoi Income Tax Officer-22(3)-4 22, Punit Chambers Tower 6, 3Rd Floor Plot 769-C, Sector 18 Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex Turbhe, Vashi Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan - Aaapo2816L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 221(1)

Kamlesh M. Kanugo HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and Assessing

ITA 4045/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri RakeshFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 221(1)

Sangita Hiren Trivedi, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 7055/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7055/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Mrs.Sangita Hiren Trivedi, बनधम/ The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Vrinda, 1St Floor, Society, 22(3)(4), Vs. Tower No.6, 3Rd Floor, Sector No.10-A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Ahdpt1745R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri M S Mathuria प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 8/9/2014 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-33, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2012-13 By Which The Assessee Is Challenging The Penalty Levied U/S 221(1) By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A)-33, Mumbai. 2. Only Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is With Respect To The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.2,30,760/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Levied By The Ao U/S 221(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 7055/Mum/2014

Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)

ACIT, Bhiwani vs. M/S. Vegan Colloids Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 6715/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddyassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. K. Surendra Nagu, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: None

Section 140ASection 221(1)Section 234B

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Regal Shoes, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine

ITA 1654/MUM/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. B.S.BistFor Respondent: None

Section 221(1)

Satbir Nijjjer vs. Comissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/63/2015HC Punjab & Haryana18 Jan 2016

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(14)Section 221(1)Section 250(4)Section 260A

Vjtf Eduservices Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4085/MUM/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Vjtf Eduservices Ltd. Income Tax Officer, (Erstwhile Vinay Jain’S Ward – 9(3)(3), Training Forum Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai 1St Floor, Neel Kanth Apartment, Vs. Ramchandra Lane, Near Allahabad Bank, Malad (W), Mumbai - 64 Pan: Aaacv8708P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Shloka Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shloka Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R

Section 221(1)

Shreya Life Sciences P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3367/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K Arvind

Section 221(1)Section 40

DCIT CC 44, Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Sciences P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K Arvind

Section 221(1)Section 40

ITO, Faridabad vs. M/S Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Faridabad

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

ITA 2915/DEL/2011[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Tds Ward, Faridabad 12/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Pan: Aaacm1432F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dated 14.03.2011 Passed For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Facts & Law In Deleting The Penalty As Tax Deductor Continued Deducting The Tax, But Failed To Deposit The Same Into The Central Govt. Account Within The Stipulated Time. Ii. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Of Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty On The Ground That The Tax Deductor Was Ignorant Of Indian Tax Laws Is Not Correct As It Took The Tax Deductor More Than One Year To Understand & Comply With The Indian Tax Laws. Iii. That The Appellant Craves For The Permission To Add, Delete Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates

Section 201

ACIT, Bhiwani vs. M/S Vikas Wsp Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 4305/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta Before Shri G.C. Gupta, Vice Before Shri G.C. Gupta Before Shri G.C. Gupta , Vice & Shri Shri Prashant Maharishi Shri Shri Prashant Maharishi Prashant Maharishi, , , , Accountant Prashant Maharishi Accountantmember Member

Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)