VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXI › Section 457
Chapter XXIwas s.271G

Section 457 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 457 — Penalty for failure to furnish information or document under section 171. Successor to s.271G of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 457 is in Chapter XXI — Penalties, which runs from section 439 to section 472.

← Section 456  ·  Section 458 →

What this section does

Where a person who has entered into an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction fails to furnish information or a document required under section 171(2), a penalty equal to 2% of the value of that transaction may be imposed for each such failure. Three authorities can impose it: the Assessing Officer, the Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 166, and the Commissioner (Appeals). The section is a single sentence with no exceptions, defences or thresholds of its own.

Why it is there

Section 171(2) information is what the officer relies on to test a price, and its non-production would otherwise cost nothing; the section attaches a proportionate cost to each refusal or failure.

Who it applies to

The figures, and what each one turns on

Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
WhatFigureThe condition on itWhere
Penalty for failure to furnish section 171(2) information or document2% of the value of the transactionFor each such failure; imposable by the Assessing Officer, the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 166, or the Commissioner (Appeals)457

What this means in practice

The exposure is per failure and measured against the value of the transaction concerned, so repeated non-compliance on a large transaction compounds quickly. The Transfer Pricing Officer can levy it directly during the section 166 proceedings — you do not have to wait for the Assessing Officer to take it up. Responding to a section 171(2) requisition, even partially and on time, is what keeps the section out of play; the section provides no reasonable cause defence on its own terms.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

The Transfer Pricing Officer requisitions documents under section 171(2) about a Rs. 60 crore international transaction and the company does not produce them; a second requisition on the same transaction goes unanswered as well. The penalty is 2% of the value of that transaction for each such failure — Rs. 1.20 crore apiece — so repeated non-compliance on a large transaction compounds instead of being absorbed into one charge. It need not wait for the Assessing Officer: the Transfer Pricing Officer referred to in section 166 may impose it during his own proceedings, as may the Commissioner (Appeals), and the section carries no threshold and no defence of its own.

Where you meet this section

As a penalty order following non-compliance with a requisition under section 171(2), most often issued in the course of the Transfer Pricing Officer's proceedings under section 166. Any reasonable cause answer has to be built on section 470, which lists this section, rather than on anything in the section itself.

The words themselves

a penalty equal to 2% of the value of such transaction may be imposed upon him for each such failure
Section 457, Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 457. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Explainers

Read with

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.