How many judgments cite CIT v. Dimpal Yadav?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dimpal Yadav (379 ITR 177), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dimpal Yadav come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 273B, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 143(3).

CIT v. Dimpal Yadav

379 ITR 177High Court2015#7892 most cited

What is CIT v. Dimpal Yadav authority for?

Penalty under Section 271D is justified if the assessee fails to show reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS, and Section 273B can be applied to cancel the penalty if reasonable cause is established.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Dimpal Yadav · 379 ITR 177 · Section 269SS · Section 271D · Section 273B · penalty for cash transactions · reasonable cause · cancellation of penalty · Allahabad High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 269SS Section 271D Section 273B Section 153A Section 153C Section 143(3)Section 156 Section 194IA

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269ss section 271d section 269 section 273b section 274 section 26 levy of penalty reasonable cause genuineness of the transaction section 271 section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Dimpal Yadav

Bommarabettu Madhu Sudhana Acharya, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and Tps, Udupi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

…have any taxable income and they have held cash in hand to pay for the residential properties. 9.2 The purpose of introduction of section 269SS of the Act was discussed in the judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dimple Yadav reported in 379 ITR 177 (All.), wherein the Court considered the recourse of section 271D of the Act and also the provisions of section 273B of the Act to hold as under: “6. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether any penalty could be imposed under Section 271D of the Act? 7. The learned counsel for the department contended that the unsecured loan,…

Maheshwarappa Muniramu, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…e than account payee cheque/account payee draft. Maheshwarappa Muniramu, Bangalore Page 9 of 16 9.1 The purpose of introduction of section 269SS of the Act was discussed in the judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dimple Yadav reported in 379 ITR 177 (All.), wherein the Court considered the recourse of section 271D of the Act and also the provisions of section 273B of the Act to hold as under: “6. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether any penalty could be imposed under Section 271D of the Act? 7. The learned counsel for the department contended that the unsecured loan,…

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5866/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

…trarily but judiciously, that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with the provisions. Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 14. The Ld. AR further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Dimpal Yadav (379 ITR 177) wherein it has been held as follows: “reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee and the provisions of Section 273B were applicable. The cancellation of penalty was justified”. 15. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of the matter, when reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee which was further considered by the Co-ordinate Be…

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5865/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

Bhoom Reddy Komatireddy, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 652/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin. Sr. AR

Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…n our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty merely on technical mistake committed by the assessee, which has not resulted in any loss of revenue, shall be harsh and cannot be sustained in law. (iv) CIT-v-Smt. Dimple Yadav 379 ITR 177 (All HO) wherein it w4 observed that object behind such legislation was to ensure that a tax payer was not allowed to give the false explanation for his unaccounted money. Thus, in order to curb the menace of black money, section 269S5 visa introduced in the Act by the legislature. It was further noted that in order to avoid undue hardship to the…

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…CIT Vs. M. Ramakrishnan – 378 ITR 437 of Madras High Court. 7. PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd – 378 ITR 614 of Delhi High Court. 8. ACIT Vs. BBL Foods Pvt. Ltd. – order dt.23.05.2008 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 9. CIT Vs. Akhilesh Yadav & Dimple Yadav – 379 ITR 177 of Allahabad High Court. 10. PCIT Vs. M/s. Radha Krishna Vihar – order dt.13.02.2017 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 11. Padan Chand Pungliya Vs. ACIT – 181 ITD 261 of ITAT Jaipur Bench. 12. CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal – 241 Taxman 199 of Supreme Court. 13. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 352 ITR 480 of Supreme Court. 14. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 300…

Smt. Jaya Ignatius, Bengaluru vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 446/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Venudhar Godesi, D.R

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…penalty u/s 271D of the Act cannot be levied. Further, he submitted that the said transaction is genuine, therefore, no penalty is applicable and for this purpose, he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dimple Yadav (379 ITR 177) for this proposition. According to him, the sales consideration has been duly reported to the department in his return of income and the transaction has to be Mrs. Jaya Ignatius, Bangalore Page 3 of 7 considered as genuine transaction and penalty cannot be levied. More so, the assessee is a senior citizen having no knowledge of the income tax p…

Kishan Motors, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…on various judicial pronouncements before us to contend that the present case is covered by the said decisions as follows: i) CIT vs. Saini Medical Store, 276 ITR 79 (P&H) ii) Chamundi Granites (P) ltd vs DCIT, 239 ITR 694 (Kar) III) CIT vs Smt Dimpal Yadva, 379 ITR 177(All) iv) CIT vs M Yesoda, 351 ITR 265 (Mad) 32. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, first of all, we may point out that from the copies of documents available at pages 18 to 25 of paper book, we note that both the persons who have given cash loan to the assessee are relatives i.e. one brother and other is nephew. There…

M/S Dra Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 781/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271DSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 780 & 781/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. DRA Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 4, Ranka Chambers, Commissioner of Income 31, Cunningham Road, Vs. Tax, Bangalore – 560 052. Circle – 11 (1), PAN: AACCD4378F Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Jinita Chaterjee, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 24.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Memb…

M/S Dra Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 780/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271DSection 68

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gujarat Gaurav Inn Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4406/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Cit-12(2)(2), M/S Gujrat Gaurav Inn Hotels Room No. 145, 1St Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Raj Nagar, W.E. Highway, Opp. Bhavan M.K. Road, Raj Nagar, Before Checknaka, Mumbai-400020 Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan No. Aaacg4095J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. CIT-12(2)(2), M/s Gujrat Gaurav Inn Hotels Room No. 145, 1st Pvt. Ltd. Vs. floor, Aayakar Raj Nagar, W.E. Highway, Opp. Bhavan M.K. Road, Raj Nagar, Before Checknaka, Mumbai-400020 Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400066. PAN No. AAACG4095J Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR Assessee by : Mr. Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, AR Date of Hearing : 24/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 14/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal…

Prodyut Dhar, South 24 Parganas vs. JCIT, Range-53, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1788/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Section 269SSection 271D

…ere accepted by the assessee in cash under the compelling circumstances and there was a reasonable cause for accepting the said loans in cash. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs Smt. Dimpal Yadav and Akhilesh Kumar Yadav 379 ITR 177 and the 4 I.T.A. No. 1788/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Prodyut Dhar decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Young Men Christian Association 227 Taxman 31, he contended that the case of the assessee is not a fit case to impose penalty under section 271D. 5. The learned DR, on the other ha…

Mohamad Taslim Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7259/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, SrFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta, D.R

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…/Mum/12 A.Y. 09-10 [Mr. Mohamad Taslim shaikh vs. Addl. CIT] Page 4 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 2.4 Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Dimpal Yadav & Akhilesh Kumar Yadav (2015) 379 ITR 177 (All)(HC), wherein Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of Tribunal inter alia holding that loan transaction was genuine and there was reasonable cause for cash loan in similar situation. In view of above, we are not inclined to concur with the finding of CIT(A). Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act becaus…

Manan Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result we reverse the finding of ld CIT (A) in confirming the penalty u/s 271D of Rs

ITA 392/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishimanan Jain Jcit, A-17/4, Ground Floor, Range-19, Vs. Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Agipj6920G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Pahuja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ss of such transactions in not in doubt. Therefore, the transaction of the assessee is carried out with commercial expediency and business need. Our view is further gets support from the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dimple Yadav 379 ITR 177 (All) wherein it has been held as under:- “10. The object of introducing section 269SS of the Act was to ensure that a taxpayer was not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money or if the taxpayer made some false entries, he would not escape by giving false explanation for the same. It was found that during the search and seizur…