← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271D”

PenaltySection 271DSection 271D244 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271D is P.V. Doshi v. CIT (113 ITR 22), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271D

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel
315 ITR 163 · 2009 · High Court
75
citing judgments

A genuine personal transaction or a non-returnable transfer between family members or related entities does not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' under Section 269SS, and therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271D

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

commitments, same could not be a ground to be taken as a mitigating factor to escape from rigour of levy of penalty under section 271D. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 266 (SC)/[2021] 278 Taxman 273 (SC) INCOME TAX: SLP dismissed as withdrawn against High Court’s ruling that where assessee failed

Late Shri Pawan Kumar L/H Smt. Nirmal Jain, Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 797/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

impugned penalty by Ld. JCIT and confirmation thereof by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. The plea of Ld. Sr. DR that penalty under section 271D and 271E can be initiated dehors any pending proceedings for relevant A.Y. is devoid of merit. 13. We agree with the contention

Ameen Mirza, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-48, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 1759/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

section 269SS of the Act, necessary information was passed on to the authority concerned, who is empowered to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. After receiving the information, show-cause notices dated 07.03.2019 under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act were issued ... No.2493/Del/2018 (AY: 2008- 09) dated 05.11.2018. 5. Without prejudice, learned counsel submitted that on merits also, the assessee has a strong case, as, penalty under section 271D is not automatic, but it depends upon the acceptability of the explanation furnished by the assessee. He submitted, assessees are poor and uneducated

Nadeem Mirza, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-48, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 1758/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

section 269SS of the Act, necessary information was passed on to the authority concerned, who is empowered to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. After receiving the information, show-cause notices dated 07.03.2019 under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act were issued ... No.2493/Del/2018 (AY: 2008- 09) dated 05.11.2018. 5. Without prejudice, learned counsel submitted that on merits also, the assessee has a strong case, as, penalty under section 271D is not automatic, but it depends upon the acceptability of the explanation furnished by the assessee. He submitted, assessees are poor and uneducated

Maqtro Pictures, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi

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

ITA 999/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 68

Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 20.01.2022 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

giving gifts relatives on behalf of HUF did not amount to loan or deposit within the meaning of s. 269SS and accordingly, penalty under section 271D was not leviable. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Goyal Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax (2004) 2 ITJ 115 (Tribunal-Indore ... money to be paid to the seller. We find that this would amount to reasonable cause shown by the assessee to avoid penalty under Section 271D of the income Tax Act" (Para10) Jammu Beg. The Tribunal, referring to the decision of this Court reported

DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 3Section 68

assessee-company, Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that assessee had taken those deposits in violation of section 269SS and thereby imposing penalty under section 271D- Held, yes". It was held that:-  Where there is no actual receipt of money by assessee.  Amounts were credited by journal entries

M/S. Arun Pulvarising Industries, Pratapgarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Arun Pulvarising Acit, Chittorgarh, Industries, M.G. Road, Vs Rajasthan Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Pan: Aadfa0793K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Arun Padliya & Shri Abhinav Jaion, Cas Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 28Th June, 2018 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271E Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “01. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Learned Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Cit(A), Udaipur Erred In Facts As Well As In Law Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of Rs. 3,90,000/- On The Assessee Firm Without Considering The M/S Arun Pulvarising Industries

Section 271ESection 273B

payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Under section 273B a judicial discretion is left with the assessing authority not to levy a penalty under section 271D if the authority is satisfied that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of section 269SS

Sanjeev Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(8), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2494/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 251Section 269SSection 271D

appeal filed before him.” 2 ITA No.2494/Del./2022 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act amounting to Rs.4

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax.Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 73/RJT/2023[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

appellant, however, on 13.11.2021 filed further two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A)-13 for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2003 levying penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- for contravention of provision of Section 269SS ... both dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad. 26. Before the said CIT(A), the appellant challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

appellant, however, on 13.11.2021 filed further two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A)-13 for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2003 levying penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- for contravention of provision of Section 269SS ... both dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad. 26. Before the said CIT(A), the appellant challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

appellant, however, on 13.11.2021 filed further two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A)-13 for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2003 levying penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- for contravention of provision of Section 269SS ... both dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad. 26. Before the said CIT(A), the appellant challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

appellant, however, on 13.11.2021 filed further two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A)-13 for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2003 levying penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- for contravention of provision of Section 269SS ... both dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad. 26. Before the said CIT(A), the appellant challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T

Chetndas Sablani, Burhapur vs. The JCIT, Khanwa

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanichetandas Sablani Jcit M.B. 18, New Indira Colony Khandwa Vs. Burhanpur

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in confirming penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The Appellant prays that the said penalty be directed to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above, on the facts

Shri Jatinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 231/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 269SSection 271D

principles of natural justice. 2. At the outset the learned counsel for the assesse summited that the CIT Appeal erred in confirming penalty under section 271D of the income 2 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 tax act 1961, levied in violation to the provisions of section 269SS ... documentary evidence, the copy of the sale deed, which was the subject matter, forming the basis for the order of the levy of penalty under section 271D of the act. The AR explained that he filed all detail written submissions before CIT appeal, along with documentary evidence to explain that

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4557/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

perused the case records with the assistance of the ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue. The infringement of provision of Section 269SS and ensuing penalty under Section 271D is in question. 8. On perusal of the case records, it appears that the assessee- company TAPL was a limited company engaged

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4552/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

perused the case records with the assistance of the ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue. The infringement of provision of Section 269SS and ensuing penalty under Section 271D is in question. 8. On perusal of the case records, it appears that the assessee- company TAPL was a limited company engaged

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 261/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

facts, we find no reason to deviate from findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in respect of penalty under Section 271D and 271E is dismissed. Consequently, all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue as reproduced above are dismissed." 7. Thus, the learned Tribunal

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 260/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

facts, we find no reason to deviate from findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in respect of penalty under Section 271D and 271E is dismissed. Consequently, all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue as reproduced above are dismissed." 7. Thus, the learned Tribunal

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 259/IND/2021[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

facts, we find no reason to deviate from findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in respect of penalty under Section 271D and 271E is dismissed. Consequently, all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue as reproduced above are dismissed." 7. Thus, the learned Tribunal