Section 271G of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271G is CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258), cited in 50 of the 48 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271G

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds
261 ITR 258 · 2003 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The assessee bears the initial burden to maintain and produce authentic documentation under Section 92D and Rule 10D to justify transactions with related parties, especially concerning the arm's length price for such transactions under Section 40A(2)(b). The discharge of this statutory obligation to maintain accurate data is a mandatory requirement of law.

CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.
360 ITR 532 · 2013 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed for mere technical lapses or non-compliance with transfer pricing documentation requirements if substantial compliance is demonstrated and the Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not issue a specific requisition for particulars under Section 92D(3).

ACIT v. Smith & Newphew Healthcare P. Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 5 · 2011 · Reported
15
citing judgments
ACIT v. Global One India P. Ltd.
19 Taxmann.com 249 · 2012 · High Court
15
citing judgments
Apace Realty v. Income-tax Officer
140 Taxmann.com 257 · 2022 · Reported
14
citing judgments
Tapi JWil JV v. Income-tax Officer
158 Taxmann.com 433 · 2024 · High Court
14
citing judgments
Asstt. CIT v. D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd.
87 Taxmann.com 306 · 2017 · Reported
14
citing judgments
DCIT v. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.
143 Taxmann.com 43 · 2022 · High Court
13
citing judgments
CIT v. Leroy Somer & Controls India (P) Ltd.
37 Taxmann.com 407 · 2013 · High Court
13
citing judgments
DCIT v. Francois Compressors India P. Ltd.
129 Taxmann.com 260 · 2021 · Reported
12
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271G

M/S GURU NANAK RICE MILLS,NAKODAR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAKODAR

ITA 105/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.103/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.104/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.105/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Guru Nanak Rice Mills Ito बनाम/ Vpo Pandori Khas Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 Vs. Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfg-3256-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 05-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Confirmation Of Quantum Additions As Well As Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271G. First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.103/Asr/2019 Which Arises Out Of An Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92C

M/S GURU NANAK RICE MILLS,NAKODAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 104/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.103/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.104/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.105/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Guru Nanak Rice Mills Ito बनाम/ Vpo Pandori Khas Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 Vs. Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfg-3256-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 05-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Confirmation Of Quantum Additions As Well As Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271G. First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.103/Asr/2019 Which Arises Out Of An Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92C

M/S GURU NANAK RICE MILLS,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

ITA 103/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.103/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.104/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.105/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Guru Nanak Rice Mills Ito बनाम/ Vpo Pandori Khas Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 Vs. Nakodar (Punjab) - 144040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfg-3256-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 05-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Confirmation Of Quantum Additions As Well As Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271G. First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.103/Asr/2019 Which Arises Out Of An Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92C

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3615/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Income Tax – 5(1)(1) बनाम Pvt. Ltd., Fc 7081 7082, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G- Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd6676J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT-DR)
Section 271GSection 92Section 92D

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ATUL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

DCIT-5(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. INTERJEWEL PVT LTD, OPERA HOUSE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Interjewel Private Limited, 1508, Prasad Income Tax, Ward – 5(2)(1), बनाम Chambers, Opera House, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Mumbai, –400004, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Maharashtra Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd5877B .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 546/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92D

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7779/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271G

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 1179/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARJAV DIAMONDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5610/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil BhatFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)
Section 250Section 271GSection 92C

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 407/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that Quantum Addition has been deleted by ITAT for A.Y.2014-15 in Assessee's own case in

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

DCIT, SWARGATE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 383/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gopalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271GSection 273BSection 40Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

SEQUENCE DESIGN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2106/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 273BSection 92D(1)

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2359/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92BSection 92DSection 92D(1)

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2358/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92BSection 92DSection 92D(1)

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2472/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2472/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SIEMENS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

Section 271G of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax