“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

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

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

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

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [in short the learned CIT(A)] dated 29th November, 2017, wherein penalty under section 271D of Rs.12,38,75,000/- levied by the penalty order dated 30/7/2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income tax – Central range ... otherwise submitted that the assessee ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 has not shown any reasonable cause and therefore penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act were levied. He further submitted that there is no exemption with respect to the transaction of the group

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1217/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

exigencies of business, it can be said to constitute ‘reasonable cause’. The bona fide business of transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty under section 271D or 271E. More so, the assessee has been carrying on the banking business and it is having bona fide belief that provision ... question are genuine and bona fide transaction were undertaken during the regular course of its business will not result in levy of penalty under sections 271D and 271E. 19. In view of the above discussion, we inclined to delete the penalty levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Income

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

cash receipts in her return of income and offered the same to tax on suo moto basis, there is no question of levying penalty under section 271D read with section 26988 of the Act; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts ... circumstances of the case, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, we hold that imposition of penalty under section 271D against the assessee cannot be sustained in law.” 11. Similar view has been held by the following judicial pronouncements

ACIT Cent.Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1568/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Mehta

Section 12ASection 131Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

examined identical provision wherein it is held that "there is a reasonable cause for not complying with section 26955 and penalty under section 271D is not imposed in case where journal entries constitute a recognized mode of recording of transactions and in absence of any adverse finding by authorities that

Sameer Noorullah Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sameer Noorullah Khan Cit (A)-32 K Raheja Prime Kautilya Bhavan, Office No.9, 9 Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Behind Times Square Bldg, Room No.945, Bkc, Vs. Sag Baug Road, Marol Naka, Bandra (E) Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 50 Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alrpk 5260 A Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 138Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 68

post dated cheques were issued. 06. The learned Addl. CIT considered the explanation of the assessee but stated that assessee is liable for penalty under Section 271D of the Act of the sum equal to the amount of loan accepted and as assessee’s case does not fall within ... same remained un-complied with and therefore, on the merits found that there is no need to interfere with the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied of ₹18 lacs under Section 271D of the Act was confirmed by order dated 29th December

Apurva Jagdish Nanvati, Mumbai vs. JCIT-RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2421/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleapurva Jagdish Nanavati V. Jcit – Range – 10(3) Arunodaya Bungalow, Sarojini Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapn4583F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

Assessee submits that this was not purpose of introduction of Section 269SS. In view of the above, assessee submits that the levy of penalty under Section 271D in his case is not called for.. 5. As stated above. Shri Nilesh Bharani, is believed to have retracted his statement subsequently ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order of levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when no proper satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the facts and circumstances

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act in respect of journal entries, it has shown reasonable cause and therefore, the penalty under section 271D is not leviable.” C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action ... 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. within the mischief of Section 269SS of the Act so as to invite penalty under Section 271D of the Act, the assessee was under bonafide belief that passing of journal entries in their books of accounts was an accepted practice of netting

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Asstt. CIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Palava Dwellers P. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd., Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Mumbai, (Earlier Known As M/S Palava Room No. 655, Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Vardhan Chambers, Mumbai - 400020 Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (DR)

Section 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

paid money to the Government of Delhi for acquisition of a land on behalf of the assessee therein. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271D of the Act for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act since the books of the assessee reflected Assessment

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

held 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 ... compliance with Section 26955 of the Act would certainly be a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order holding that no penalty

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

Addl. CIT on 27.09.2019, imposing a penalty of Rs.15,64,50,000/- on the appellant. The appellant challenges this order of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 4. The reason for the imposition of the penalty is that the during the year the appellant had received an amount ... account and such loan was utilized by assessee for advancing money to sister concerns, in absence of any reasonable cause shown by assessee, penalty under section 271D was rightly levied on assessee. Page 10 of 37 (iii) Hindalco Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3113/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 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 M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd., (Earlier known as M/s. Lodha Developers Ltd.,) Bombay

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Sri Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273B

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 against the deletion of penalty under section 271D of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’) in case of assessee. Both the appeals involved identical facts and therefore, they ... Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P. Ltd; AYs 14-15 & 13-14 02. ITA No. 3112/Mum/2019 is for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein the penalty under section 271D of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer of ₹1,05,36,585/- is deleted by the order of the Commissioner of income

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Sri Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Sri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273B

Devendra Sharad Kumar Damle, Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-61, New Delhi

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

ITA 7271/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 271D

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, [in short ‘the learned CIT(A)], for assessment year 2008-09, in relation to penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under