← 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

Smt Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

Smt Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha B. Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1896/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1895/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances

Atma Ram Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

various Hon'ble High Courts and as per the above judicial pronouncements, the Assessing Officer has to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty under section 271D of the Act in respect of violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In this case, the assessment order was passed

Kamal Dwarkadas Gadodia, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7220/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 34

received from different parties. But on basis of the recorded statement of Mr. Gauri Shankar Choudhary and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma the penalty under section 271D of the Act was imposed to the extent of Rs.37,00,000/-. Aggrieved assessee 3 Kamal Dwarkadas Gadodia filed an appeal before

Somireddy Sudhakar Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

Assessing officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

Mr. B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2087/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

been passed by Assessing Officer (AO) which is confirmed by CIT(A), who is not empowered under the Act to initiate or impose penalty under section 271D. The AO does not have the statutory jurisdiction to levy this penalty. Hence, the order suffers from a jurisdictional defect and without authority ... their Circular No. 10/2016 (supra) has clarified that, the time limits laid down in Section 275(1)(c) would apply for levying penalty under section 271D / 271E of the Act. The relevant portion of the Circular (supra) is reproduced as under: “The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

ITA 2086/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr.A.G. SathyanarayanaFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

been passed by Assessing Officer (AO) which is confirmed by CIT(A), who is not empowered under the Act to initiate or impose penalty under section 271D. The AO does not have the statutory jurisdiction to levy this penalty. Hence, the order suffers from a jurisdictional defect and without authority ... their Circular No. 10/2016 (supra) has clarified that, the time limits laid down in Section 275(1)(c) would apply for levying penalty under section 271D / 271E of the Act. The relevant portion of the Circular (supra) is reproduced as under: "The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2085/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

been passed by Assessing Officer (AO) which is confirmed by CIT(A), who is not empowered under the Act to initiate or impose penalty under section 271D. The AO does not have the statutory jurisdiction to levy this penalty. Hence, the order suffers from a jurisdictional defect and without authority ... their Circular No. 10/2016 (supra) has clarified that, the time limits laid down in Section 275(1)(c) would apply for levying penalty under section 271D / 271E of the Act. The relevant portion of the Circular (supra) is reproduced as under: “The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty

Hari Krishna Leela Prasad Paladugu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 798/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

within the ambit of loan or deposit or “Specified sum” as defined under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently, penalty under Section 271D of the Act, cannot be levied. The assessee also relied upon certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court ... therefore, the same cannot be considered as a “specified sum” as referred to under Section 269SS of the Act, so as to levy penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note

Anand Mahendra Kapadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 710/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

order dated 05/07/2019. We further find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made reference to Addi.CIT for levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act for violation of Section 26955 of the Act on account of receipt of cash loan, The Assessing Officer/Addl.CIT on receipt

Anand Mahendra Kapadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 709/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

order dated 05/07/2019. We further find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made reference to Addi.CIT for levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act for violation of Section 26955 of the Act on account of receipt of cash loan, The Assessing Officer/Addl.CIT on receipt

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

appellant has taken a cash loan of Rs. 2,37,98,650/- which is in contravention of Section 269SS and therefore levied penalty of section 271D of the Act for Rs. 2,37,98,650/-. In appeal the A/R of the appellant filed submission on merits as well as legality ... appeal or other proceedings arising out of the assessment in the course of which penalty proceedings have been initiated and the order imposing penalties under sections 271D and 271E had been passed within such extended period from the date of the appellate decision against the assessment order for the assessment

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

appellant has taken a cash loan of Rs. 2,37,98,650/- which is in contravention of Section 269SS and therefore levied penalty of section 271D of the Act for Rs. 2,37,98,650/-. In appeal the A/R of the appellant filed submission on merits as well as legality ... appeal or other proceedings arising out of the assessment in the course of which penalty proceedings have been initiated and the order imposing penalties under sections 271D and 271E had been passed within such extended period from the date of the appellate decision against the assessment order for the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

their Circular No. 10/2016 (supra) has clarified that, the time limits laid down in Section 275(1)(c) would apply for levying penalty under section 271D / 271E of the Act. The relevant portion of the Circular (supra) is reproduced as under: "The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty

Cherukuri Veeraju, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 465/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.465/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cherukuri Veeraju, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Rajahmundry. Of Income Tax, Pan:Abxpc6760H Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27/05/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Under Section 271D Of The 2 Cherukuri Veeraju Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271D

sale consideration of Rs. 44,07,020/- , thus called upon him to explain that as to why he may not be subjected to penalty under Section 271D of the Act. As the 4 Cherukuri Veeraju vs. DCIT assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation, therefore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner ... Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, in his grounds of appeal, had though also assailed the imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the Act by drawing support from the immunity provided under Section 273B of the Act and a host of judicial pronouncements, but there

Muthusamy Nagaraj, Erode vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Erode Range Erode

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

ITA 2878/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Ms.R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice

Siluvaikani Chelliah, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Dr. CA. Abhishek MuraliFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice