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

Dr Anbu Selvan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 332/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.332/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dr. Anbu Selvan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 323, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Bnqpa3351L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate & Shri B. Harish, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 279 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271

Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1465/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1465/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad – 380 014 42, Tirth Bhumi Co-Op. Society Near Dhara Soap Factory Nikol Gam Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpd 2745 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)"], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. The Appeal Arises From The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

The Chief Manager (Administration)State Bank of India, )N, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 287/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C