← 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

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 258/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 257/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

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

ITA 256/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

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT -Range, Bhopal

ITA 255/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

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT -Range, Bhopal

ITA 254/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Add.CIT Range -Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 253/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 252/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Love Shoppers Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 13,25,000/-”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

dismissed.” 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company had received a loan from its Director, which was also repaid ... this itself can be a ground alone to vacate levy of penalty decision 271D of the Act. In our considered view, levy of penalty under section 271D is independent of any finding with respect of genuineness of the transaction. However, we do agree with the proposition that if the assessee

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

disputed these facts in the impugned order. Once these are the admitted jurisdictional fact, there is no scope of imposition of penalty under section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the contravention of provisions of section 269SS. As a condition precedent the ld. JCIT was bound to have established ... Chandigarh (SB) wherein the Bench observed as under :- “ 27. In the final analysis, we hold that the authority competent to impose penalty under sections 271D and 271E is vested with the Dy. CIT (now Joint CIT) and the Assessing Officer does not have the power either to initiate the penalty

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

repayment of loan or deposit of Rs. 2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

repayment of loan or deposit of Rs. 2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter

M/S Lokmanya Shiksham Sansthan, Dewas vs. The JCIT Exemption, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 394/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 269SSection 271BSection 271D

position. The Penalty levied therefore is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty under section 271D and 271E without appreciating that neither the Assessee accepted nor repaid loan/ deposit in contravention of section 269SS and 269T respectively. Therefore

ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Hi Quality Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9254/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 133Section 68

appellant company has received and repaid loan of Rs 4,10,000/- in cash. Therefore, the aforesaid transaction is fit for levy of penalty under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Act. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax is empowered to initiate and impose penalty proceedings under Section

Devinder Gupta & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5394/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) and held that the legislature has given discretion to the authority in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that where a reasonable cause exists for transactions covered under Section 269SS, the penalty shall

Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Surat vs. Add. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

appeals, the assessee(s) has raised certain common grounds of appeal, facts in both these years are similar, except variation of figure of penalty under section 271D, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid ... appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range-1(3), Surat. The Additional Commissioner of Income tax (Add. CIT) while levying

Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

appeals, the assessee(s) has raised certain common grounds of appeal, facts in both these years are similar, except variation of figure of penalty under section 271D, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid ... appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range-1(3), Surat. The Additional Commissioner of Income tax (Add. CIT) while levying

Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the second additional ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1738/AHD/2016[01-04-95 to 19-12-01]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Pasrag Apartment, Near Badekha Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Chakla Police Chowky, Surat. Momnawad, Gopipura, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aabcp 5942 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

appeal for the first time before the Tribunal. No such factual objection was ever raised by assessee either at the time of levying penalty under Section 271D dated 20/06/2015 or before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Tribunal in first round of appeal. The ld. CIT-DR submits that ... assessment order, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings vide reference dated 14/05/2004 for initiation of penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS in respect of various deposits/ loan received by the assessee in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-, during

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

sister concerns through journal entries (i.e., otherwise than by way of account payee cheques/draft). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made reference for levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act in respect of the following transaction, vide letter dated ... that deposits /loans received through journal entries do not fall with the mischief of Section 269SS of the Act, so as to invite penalty under Section 271D of the Act. This, the Tribunal did by following its earlier orders in the case of V.N. Parekh Ltd. and Ketan Parekh

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

DCIT- CC- 7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1406/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd., Room No. 655, 6Th Floor (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd.,) 412, 17G, Vardhan Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Niraj Sheth Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

submission, the following issues are crystallized which may be categorically dealt with by the Hon’ble ITAT: (i) To examine the imposition of penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 12.6.2012 in the case ... finding whether the assessees, by undertaking transactions through journal entries, are violating the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T and are liable to penalty under section 271D and 271E in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 12.6.2012 in the case of Triumph International Finance