Which cases are most cited on Section 272A(2)(k)?

Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT (168 Taxmann.com 383) — 20 citing judgments; CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (244 ITR 417) — 19 citing judgments; Technologies v. CIT (195 Taxmann 323) — 9 citing judgments; 1. CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (157 Taxmann 52) — 5 citing judgments; U S Technologies P. Ltd. v. CIT (453 ITR 644) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 272A(2)(k)?

BharatTax indexes 249 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act?

Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT (168 Taxmann.com 383) is the decision most relied on for Section 272A(2)(k), cited in 20 judgments. Late fees under Section 234E cannot be imposed while processing TDS applications under Section 200A if Section 200A was not in effect during the relevant assessment years.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.465

Section 272A(2)(k) falls under section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 465 (Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, Furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspections, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 465 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 272A(2)(k) is Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT (168 Taxmann.com 383), cited in 20 of the 249 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k)

Lingeshwara Creations v. PCIT

168 Taxmann.com 383 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Late fees under Section 234E cannot be imposed while processing TDS applications under Section 200A if Section 200A was not in effect during the relevant assessment years.

CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd.

244 ITR 417 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(2) and 271C cannot be levied for belated TDS deposit if the amount along with interest has been paid, as this constitutes a technical or venial breach and does not cause revenue loss. The Assessing Officer's discretion to levy penalties must be exercised judiciously.

Technologies v. CIT

195 Taxmann 323 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

1. CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd.

157 Taxmann 52 · High Court

citing judgments

U S Technologies P. Ltd. v. CIT

453 ITR 644 · 2023 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Haryana Distillery Ltd. v. JCIT

97 Taxmann.com 571 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

Maliwal Bherulal Jagnnath HUF, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jamnagar

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

ITA 855/RJT/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.855/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 ] Maliwal Bherulal Jagnnath Huf, Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), 1 Block No D 3 285, Nr Patel Vs. Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Jamnagar, Samaj Ranjit Nagar, Gujarat-361001 Jamnagar, Gujarat-361005 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadhm7757B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012- 13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 10.03.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 206C(6) & 206C(7) Of The Act, On 15.05.2017. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Tcs Liability U/S 206C (1) Of The Act Of Rs. 25,42,092/-, On Total Sale Of Rs. 25,42,09,224/- For The F.Y. 2011-12, By Not Considering The Fact That The Assessee Has Duly Submitted The Form 27C As Per Section 206C(1A) Amount To Rs. 13,60,28,364/- & Declaration Obtained From Buyer As Prescribed In Form 27Ba As Per First Proviso To Section 206C(6A) Amounts To Rs. 11,81,80,860/- Aggregating

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(3)Section 206C(6)Section 250

Colours Multimedia Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6670/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalcolours Multimedia Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1) Private Limited C.R. Building First Floor, Pratap New Delhi – 110002 Bhawan, 5 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc8470F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. HritikSingla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), TDS, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2014-2015

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), TDS, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2013-2014

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

M.P.N. College, Ambala vs. JCIT, Karnal

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm.P.N. College, Jcit, V & P.O. Mullana, Tds Range, Distt. Ambala. Vs. Karnal. Pan-Aabam2353E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2015 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Panchkula [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 13.06.2012 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer/ Jcit, Tds Range, Karnal U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Available With Department, The Person Responsible Deducted & Deposited Tds But Failed To File E-Tds Return Within Stipulated Period. The Due Dates Of Filing Of E-Tds Returns In This Case Were 15.07.2009, 15.10.2009, 15.01.2010 & 15.06.2010 For 1St To 4Th Quarters Of F.Y. 2009-10. The E-Tds Returns For Such Quarters Were Filed On 06.02.2012. Total Delay M.P.N. College Vs. Jcit

Section 250(6)Section 272A(2)(k)