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

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