Section 271G of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.457

Section 271G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 457 (Penalty for failure to furnish information or document under section 171) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 457 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 271G is CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258), cited in 50 of the 156 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
33
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).

DCIT v. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
40 Taxmann.com 168 · 2014 · Reported
16
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271AA of the Income Tax Act is not leviable if the international transaction entered into by the assessee with its associate concern has been held to be at arm's length, especially when transfer pricing documentation was accepted for prior assessment years.

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

The requirement to furnish prescribed information under Section 92D(3) of the Income-tax Act arises only when the assessee fails to support its Arm's Length Price (ALP) with necessary evidence. There is no justification in demanding information first and then offering an opportunity to the assessee.

Apace Realty v. Income-tax Officer
140 Taxmann.com 257 · 2022 · Reported
14
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied if no case is made out by the Assessing Officer. If the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty, no interference is required.

Tapi JWil JV v. Income-tax Officer
158 Taxmann.com 433 · 2024 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271AA of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied if the Assessing Officer fails to make out a case for its imposition. In such circumstances, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) requires no interference.

Asstt. CIT v. D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd.
87 Taxmann.com 306 · 2017 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed for failure to furnish segment-wise details of related and non-related party transactions in the diamond industry due to practical difficulties.

DCIT v. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.
143 Taxmann.com 43 · 2022 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied if the Assessing Officer has not brought any specific default regarding the maintenance of requisite documents on record.

DCIT v. Francois Compressors India P. Ltd.
129 Taxmann.com 260 · 2021 · Reported
12
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271G

Claritrics India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITTPA 84/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.84/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Claritrics India Private Limited, Dcit बनाम 46/50, Indira Nagar Main Road, Corporate Circle (1), Opposite To Ann Hospital, Chennai. / Vs. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aahcc-6213-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (1), Chennai Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘’The Act’) Vide Order Dated 13.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.1,78,580/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) (A) Of The Act On 24.08.2022 Determining Total Income At ₹.3,48,380/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny To Verify The Issue Of Large Value Of International Transactions In Services Including Transactions Under Section 92B(2) (Having Transfer Pricing Risk Parameters). Accordingly, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act In The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92B(2)Section 92CSection 92D(3)

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