Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Rules No Penalty Under Section 271C of Income Tax Act for Belated TDS Remittance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for belated remittance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The court emphasized the strict interpretation of penal provisions and analyzed the relevant statutory provisions to arrive at its conclusion.

The case involved multiple appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for belated remittance of TDS. The assessees contended that the penalties were not justifiable as they had deducted the TDS but remitted it belatedly. The issue before the court was whether penalties could be imposed for belated remittance of TDS under Section 271C.

The assessees argued that Section 271C(1)(a) only applies to cases of failure to deduct TDS, and the provision does not encompass belated remittance. They relied on the strict interpretation of penal provisions and emphasized that the language used in Section 271C(1)(a) clearly refers to "fails to deduct" and does not mention belated remittance.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that Section 271C was inserted to penalize both non-deduction and belated remittance of TDS. They contended that any other interpretation would frustrate the purpose of the provision, which aimed to levy penalties for failure to deduct tax at source.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the statutory provisions, including Section 271C, Section 201(1A) (which deals with interest on belated remittance), and Section 276B (which addresses prosecution for failure to pay TDS). The court observed that Section 271C(1)(a) clearly focuses on the failure to deduct TDS and does not mention belated remittance.

The court further emphasized that penal provisions should be strictly construed and interpreted as they are, without adding or subtracting anything from the language. It held that the consequences of non-payment or belated remittance of TDS are specifically addressed under other sections of the Act, such as Section 201(1A) and Section 276B.

The court also referred to a CBDT Circular No. 551 dated 23.01.1998, which acknowledged that no penalty is envisaged under Section 271C for belated remittance or non-deduction of TDS. The circular clarified that penalties under Section 271C were meant for failure to deduct tax at source.

Based on the analysis of statutory provisions and the CBDT Circular, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the assessees. It held that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271C for belated remittance of TDS after deducting the same. The court quashed the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court, allowing the appeals.

M/s US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax        

Latest Legal News