Section 271C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.448

Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 448 (Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 448 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 271C is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 of the 782 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271C

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd.
272 ITR 545 · 2005 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct tax at source is not leviable unless contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee is established. Where such conduct is not proven, the High Court upholds the deletion of the penalty.

CIT v. Bank of Nova Scotia
380 ITR 550 · 2016 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct tax is not leviable if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and without contumacious conduct.

CIT v. Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
379 ITR 50 · 2015 · High Court
45
citing judgments

When the High Court admits a substantial question of law concerning an assessee's claim or alleged default, it indicates the assessee's bona fides, thereby preventing the imposition of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) or 271C. The mere disallowance of a claim or an addition by revenue authorities does not automatically lead to a penalty if the issue is debatable and pending appeal.

M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors.
159 Taxmann.com 444 · 2024 · High Court
42
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.

Bagalkot District Central Co-op Bank v. JCIT
48 Taxmann.com 117 · 2014 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Co-operative societies engaged in banking are exempt from deducting tax at source on interest paid to members on time and other deposits, per Section 194A(3)(v).

CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
244 ITR 417 · 2000 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Penalty under section 272A(2) cannot be levied for mere technical or venial breaches of tax law, especially when the revenue has not suffered any loss due to the assessee's actions.

670 (Del-Trib) and Medi Assist India TPA P Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS), Circle 18(1)
184 Taxmann 359 · 2009 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The assessee is liable for demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for failure to deduct TDS, even if interest periods require further verification.

Technologies v. CIT
195 Taxmann 323 · 2010 · High Court
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Frick India Ltd.
369 ITR 328 · 2014 · High Court
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271C

Ran Vijay Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

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

ITA 2223/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm I.T.A. No. 2223/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ran Vijay Singh...............................………………………………….......................................Appellant 2, Hide Road, Kolkata – 700 043 [Pan: Amhps 8770 J] Dcit Cir 28....……………………………………………………...............................................Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04 , 2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – Xiv, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Learned Ar Submits That The A.O. Made Addition Of Rs. 63,16,063/- For Non Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition To An Extent Of Rs. 43,77,000/- Holding That The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Is Not Applicable As The Said Payment Paid On Account Of Rent To M/S. Kolkata Port Trust In View Of The Certificate Issued U/S 197(1) Of The Act By The Income Tax Department & Confirmed The Balance Sheet Of Rs. 19,39,066/-. The Learned Ar Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In The Case Of Ansal Land Mark Township

Section 139Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. Westgate Logistics Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1252/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1252/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Westgate Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. New No. 15, Old No. 7, Demonte Corporate Circle 3(2), Colony, Off Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aacct1900B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 16.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For Non Deduction Of Tds For Payment Of Rent/License Fees.

For Appellant: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 40