What is Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha authority for?

Penalty under Section 271D for cash loans in contravention of Section 269SS is not leviable when transactions are genuine and bonafide. This is particularly applicable for transactions between close relatives where a reasonable explanation exists for not using an account payee cheque or DD.

How many judgments cite Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha (351 ITR 265), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271D, Section 10(2), Section 129, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 269SS.

Citation: CIT v. M. Yesodha (351 ITR 265)

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

…, the advance amount was received on well before the date of coming into force of the amendment to section 269SS and therefore it could not be treated as violation. 15. Insofar as the other judgments relied on by the Ld.AR reported in 303 ITR 99 (Madras) and 351 ITR 265 (Madras) in which the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court had held that, if there were genuine and bonafide transactions and the taxpayer could not get loan or deposit by account payee cheque or DD for some bonafide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy Page 10 of 11 penalty. Simil…

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

…ssessee from her maternal uncle and maternal aunt 10. In more or less identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.M.Yesodha [reported in (2013) 351 ITR 265]. In the said case, the assessee claimed to have taken a loan of Rs. 20,99,393/- from her father in law for purchasing a property. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained the said loan in cash from her father in law, which was in contravention of the provisions…

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1022 &1023/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kanhiya Lal Sain cuke The JCIT Vs. 7, Purana Ramgarh Mode Range-7 Anand Colony,Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BCYPS 6300 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokb…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.205 to 207/CTK/2022 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Y. : 2009-2010, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) वष" DCIT Central Circle-2, Vs M/s Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd., A-1/9, A-1(A) & A-14, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751014 PAN No. :AAACH 8114 M (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ"…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.205 to 207/CTK/2022 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Y. : 2009-2010, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) वष" DCIT Central Circle-2, Vs M/s Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd., A-1/9, A-1(A) & A-14, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751014 PAN No. :AAACH 8114 M (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ"…

SHRI BABU MUNIRATHINAM,CHENNAI vs. THE JCIT, NCR-17,, CHENNAI

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…sessee from her maternal uncle and maternal aunt. 10. In more or less identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.M.Yesodha [reported in (2013) 351 ITR 265]. In the said case, the assessee claimed to have taken a loan of Rs.20,99,393/- from her father in law for purchasing a property. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained 5 I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/24 the said loan in cash from her father in law, which was in contr…

MANI SUNDARAM,DEVAKOTTAI vs. ITO,WARD-1, KARAIKUDI

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…es, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account. Therefore, it was submitted that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted. By relying upon the decisions in the cast of CIT v. Smt. M. Yesodha 351 ITR 265 (Mad) and Ms. Nanda Kumar v. ITO in TCA No. 968 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018, the ld. counsel prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of auth…

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI vs. DR.M.N.KUMARESAN, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1623/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1623/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito Dr. M.N. Kumaresan बनाम/ Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), Old No.13/3, New No.10, Chennai. East Circular Road, Mandavelipakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahupk-6153-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr !"थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…a gift, the assessee was not prevented from executing a valid gift deed for such a huge sum, as he, being a practicing doctor, himself is well aware of the law of the land. 2.6 The relied upon decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Yesodha (351 ITR 265)(Mad) is not squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as in that case the father-in-law had given gift to the daughter-in-law, which has been accounted as such, whereas in the instant case, the assessee had shifted his stand from receiving cash loan/advance to gift which is not appropriate. 3. For these and other…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/s Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AEPPJ4134H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Respondentby : Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Jabalpur passed u/s 271D and 250…

ANURADHA CHIVUKULA CHALLA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RANGE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…he assessee cannot be sustained in law.” 11. Similar view has been held by the following judicial pronouncements:- 8 IT(IT)A No.585/Bang/2022 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa. (i) CIT v Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (ii) CIT v. Smt.M.Yesodha (2013) 351 ITR 265 (Mad.) (iii) Rajiana Kheti Store v. ITO (2008) 20 SOT 3 (Asr) (URO). 12. In the light of the above said reasoning and the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we delete the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 14th day of September, 2022. (Laxmi Prasad…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. MR. SANJAY SHENOY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Amrit Raj Singh, JCIT, (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri. V Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273D

…before us and several other decisions clearly supports the proposition that acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives do not attract the provisions of sec.269AA and 269T of the Act. 17. In the case of CIT Vs. Smt. M Yesodha, 351 ITR 265, an amount received by assessee from her father-in-law was held to be outside the ambit of sec. 269SS of the Act. In the case of Ms. Nanda Kumari Vs. ITO, Tax case appeal No.968 of 2018 and judgment dated 20/12/2018 wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that receipt of cash by the daughter-in-law from father-in-law does not attract the prov…

RAJKUMAR S AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT-20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4251/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4251/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Rajkumar S Agarwal The Jt. Commissioner Of 209, Raiker Chamber, Bks Devsai Income Tax Marg, Govandi East, Mumbai फनाभ/ Circle-20(3) 4T H 411, Floor, Piramal Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aidpa3783B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V, DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयफ़ौय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 4251/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Rajkumar S Agarwal The Jt. Commissioner of 209, Raiker Chamber, BKS Devsai Income Tax Marg, Govandi East, Mumbai फनाभ/ Circle-20(3) 4t h 411, Floor, Piramal Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AIDPA3783B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant by : None प्…

SWAPNIL MURLIDHAR PICHAD,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT. RANG- 1 KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5402/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Swapnil Murlidhar Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Pichad Tax, Range – 1 B-508, Ashoka Building No.2 Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Gavand Baug, Kadakpada, Kalyan (W) Pokharan Road No.2 Dist: Thane – 421 301 Thane – 400 606 Pan/Gir No.Bjcpp9926N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 58

…is a reasonable cause adduced by the assessee within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act and hence, assessee would be entitled for immunity for levy of penalty. 4.2. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Yesodha reported in 351 ITR 265 had held that the cash loan 4 Shri Swapnil Murlidhar Pichad transaction between father-in-law and daughter-in-law cannot be subject matter of levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act as long as the sources for the same are established. In the instant case, there is absolutely no dispute that the father of the assessee had sufficient sources to advan…