← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine

ITA 180/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 269SSection 271D

there will not be any occasion to the Joint Commissioner, who is not the Assessing officer, to exercise his jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271D, when upon reference by the Assessing Officer, the competent authority i.e., the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income-tax being the levying authority had himself satisfied ... there will not be any occasion to the Joint Commissioner, who is not the Assessing officer, to exercise his jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271D of the Act, when the said provisions do not specify the role of the Assessing Officer in drawing satisfaction, but statutorily permit the Joint/Additional

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Ms Avc Homes, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 384/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleand

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271DSection 69A

such definite evidence is available in this case to show that the appellant contravened provisions of Section 269SS to justify the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. In the case of ITAT in Navin Kumar v/s JCIT (2006) 99 TTJ 267 98 ITD 242 (TM) (ITAT Amritsar

Nadeem Ahmad Khan, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 16/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 270ASection 271DSection 273BSection 274

bonafide belief, claimed the land compensation along with interest thereon as exempt. 6. In respect of the appeal with respect to the penalty under section 271D of the Act, the Ld. Ld. AR contended that the assessee’s father, around 75 years during the relevant year, handed over his entire ... account. The said cash was found genuine by the AO; hence, no addition was made in the assessment order. However, the AO levied penalty under section 271D of the Act. The Ld. AR contended the penalty had been levied for a technical default. There was no malafide in the said

Nadeen Ahmad Khan, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 15/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 270ASection 271DSection 273BSection 274

bonafide belief, claimed the land compensation along with interest thereon as exempt. 6. In respect of the appeal with respect to the penalty under section 271D of the Act, the Ld. Ld. AR contended that the assessee’s father, around 75 years during the relevant year, handed over his entire ... account. The said cash was found genuine by the AO; hence, no addition was made in the assessment order. However, the AO levied penalty under section 271D of the Act. The Ld. AR contended the penalty had been levied for a technical default. There was no malafide in the said

Imrankhan Gulambhai Shaikh, Na vs. Arivs.National Faceless Center, Assessment Unit

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 334/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 271D

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 334/SRT/2024

M/S the Panniyankara Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Kozhikode

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

ITA 910/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 275(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) confirming the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. The NFAC erred in holding that there is contravention of the provisions of section 269SS ... therefore penalty under section 271D is leviable. 3. The NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, who is 3 ITA No.910/Coch/2022. The Panniyankara SCB Limited. carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, the business consists of accepting

Bhavanishanker Naik, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1968/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Priya R., Advocate & Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 274

case. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the findings of the Assessing Officer and the imposition penalty under section 271D of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below erred ... cash received at the time of registration would not fall under the ambit of section 269SS of the Act and consequently, no penalty under section 271D of the Act could have been levied on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 14 9. Without further prejudice

Bharatbhai Ravatbhai Khachar, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

ITA 263/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 26Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Royal Canin India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6816/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeroyal Canin India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 1401 & 1402, F Wing, 14Th Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts No.185/A, Graham Firth Mumbai-400 020 Compound, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aadcr4417J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriK.M. Gupta a/w Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIVIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shri. Rajnish Gopinath, Bangalore vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1918/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. V. S. Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153Section 269SSection 271DSection 296S

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is required to be recorded because the officer, who passed the assessment order would not be levying the penalty under section 271D of the Act, unless it is recorded in the assessment order, he cannot refer the file to superior officer i.e. Joint Commissioner ... 269SS, there will not be any occasion to the Joint Commissioner, who is not the Assessing Officer, to exercise his jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271D. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills referred supra, we set aside

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

circumstances it is crystal clear that the learned AO emed in referring the matter to your kind honour for imposition of penalty under section 271D in the case of Shri Ajay Bakliwal. Therefore your show cause notice is based on wrong footing and deserves to be drooped. The same ... Limited, Kota as per assessment order for A'Y. 2016-17. F. The leamed AO erred in referring the matter for imposing of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 under a wrong impression and on wrong appreciation of facts to your kind honour. Kindly drop

Krishna Wanti, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-35, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 269SSection 271D

thus liable for penalty under section 271DA of the Act by grossly ignoring the fact that AO has levied the penalty under section 271D in respect of violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ... Krishna Wanti penalty under section 271DA of the Act by grossly ignoring the fact that AO has levied the penalty under section 271D in respect of violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. 8. The ld AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the application

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 16528 Vishnu Colony, Raliway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 768/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 28.06.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. The ld. AO has imposed a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act on account of acceptance of loan in cash in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. This ... Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed and both orders are set aside. The assessee does not deserve to be visited with penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 24. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 07.04.2025. (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 1652 8 Vishnu Colony, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra, Haryana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 765/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 28.06.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. The ld. AO has imposed a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act on account of acceptance of loan in cash in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. This ... Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed and both orders are set aside. The assessee does not deserve to be visited with penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 24. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 07.04.2025. (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam

Rameshwar Ramvilas Sarda, Pune vs. ITO 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1462/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

under: Ground No.1: On the basis of fact and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. AO erred in levying penalty under section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS without taking into consideration the notice under section 148 r.w.s. 147 having been issued suggesting that the Income ... dismissed. Ground No.2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. AO erred in levying penalty under section 271D without obtaining prior approval of the appropriate higher authority, 4 as there is no whisper in the penalty order, regarding approval having been obtained

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Tillor Khurad, Indore

ITA 327/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 269TSection 271E

These writ petitions are being decided by this order as the facts and issues involved are same. Though in some of the cases penalty under Section 271D and in others under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, Page 16 of 20 Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 327/Ind/2024 ... notice dated 03.01.2025 was issued. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved that penalty under section 271D cannot be imposed if there was intent of AO to do so, is covered by decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Kandregula Peddi Raju, Narsapuram

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

ITA 41/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.41/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Kandregula Peddi Raju Kakinada Narasapuram [ Pan : Andpr9130L] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 269SSection 271DSection 69

learned CIT(A), Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal and contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the penalty under section 271D becomes infructuous on the ground that the quantum assessment proceedings were set aside, without appreciating the fact that the penalty proceedings under section 271D

Natesan Shanmugam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 3052/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3052/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natesan Shanmugam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24, Pumping Station Iv Street, Ward 1(1), Thirunagar Colony, Erode 638 003. Erode. [Pan:Apmps2367B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271D Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 4Section 50C

short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate argued that the penalty under section 271D of the Act was initiated without recording any satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. He referred to the assessment order dated ... submits that nowhere in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer found violation of section 269SS of the Act attracting penalty under section 271D of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala

Jeevangani Films, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 382/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidarajeevangani Films Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.53/1, Media Infotek Range-16(1), Mumbai Park Road No.7, Opp. Ackruti Trade Centre, Midc, Marol, Andheir (E), Mumbai -400 093 Pan : Aajfj9661M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,(SR DR)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

purview of Section 269SS, as such entries do not involve the actual acceptance of a loan or deposit in monetary form.The imposition of penalty under Section 271D judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi