Which cases are most cited on Section 271BA?

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (29 ITR 661) — 73 citing judgments; R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (81 ITR 409) — 15 citing judgments; Kaypee Electronics & Associates (P) Ltd. v. DCIT Circle-1 (94 Taxmann.com 251) — 8 citing judgments; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (92 Taxmann.com 171) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 271BA?

BharatTax indexes 94 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 271BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 271BA of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 271BA of the Income Tax Act?

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (29 ITR 661) is the decision most relied on for Section 271BA, cited in 73 judgments. An assessee is not estopped from claiming a legally permissible deduction merely due to their prior accounting treatment or initial stance taken in the return. The correct legal position regarding an assessee's entitlement to a deduction always prevails, as there can be no estoppel against a statute or settled law.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.447

Section 271BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 447 (Penalty for failure to furnish report under section 172) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 447 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 271BA is (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (29 ITR 661), cited in 73 of the 94 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271BA

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.

29 ITR 661 · 1956 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped from claiming a legally permissible deduction merely due to their prior accounting treatment or initial stance taken in the return. The correct legal position regarding an assessee's entitlement to a deduction always prevails, as there can be no estoppel against a statute or settled law.

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT

81 ITR 409 · 1971 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped from claiming that a single assessment should have been made under Section 26(1) even if they previously filed separate returns for parts of a single accounting period, as there cannot be an estoppel against a statute.

Kaypee Electronics & Associates (P) Ltd. v. DCIT Circle-1

94 Taxmann.com 251 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

92 Taxmann.com 171 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271BA

Mb Petroleum Services Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

Lexus Granito (India) Limited, Morbi vs. The DCIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi

In the result, the appeals filed by the above Assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 159/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal, But Whereas Appeals Ought To Have Been Filed Before Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Therefore The Present Appeals Are Not Maintainable.

Section 271ASection 271B

Lexus Granito (India) Limited, Morbi vs. The DCIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi

In the result, the appeals filed by the above Assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 158/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal, But Whereas Appeals Ought To Have Been Filed Before Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Therefore The Present Appeals Are Not Maintainable.

Section 271ASection 271B

Amit Singla, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

ITA 6694/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 144Section 271Section 271BSection 92E

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/230/2022) is dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/230/2022HC Calcutta14 Mar 2023

Bench: :

Section 260ASection 271ASection 271BSection 271GSection 92D(2)Section 92E

Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 139/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

Torrent Petrochem Ltd( Presently Known As Blue Cross Road Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Transfer Pricing 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7373/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri.DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

Hexagon Capability Center India Private, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 486/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vicky GianiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

Faith Intertrade, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2013-14 Faith Intertrade Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 701, Shapth-1 Vs Ahmedabad. Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aabff 2495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Talera, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Ito Ward- 3(3)(12)/109/2017-18 Under Section 271Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14, Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed Action Of The Ao In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,00,000/- Under Section 271Ba Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 92CSection 92E

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7087/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7087/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Mds, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0828R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271BSection 92E

Neotiss Limited(Formerly Vallourec Heat Exchangertubes Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn in above terms

ITA 149/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P Murali, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Muzumdar, D.R

Section 271A

Neotiss Limited(Formerly Vallourec Heat Exchangertubes Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn in above terms

ITA 148/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P Murali, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Muzumdar, D.R

Section 271A

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2195/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuay : 2013-14 Ivy Comptech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1) Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaci 8884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prashant Meharchandani Revenue By: Shri R. Dipak Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri PrashantFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak

Section 143(3)