← 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

Ramareddy Dasharatha, Lakshmisagara Neralur Post vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 873/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

escaped the attention of A.O. The Addl. CIT ought to have issued notice u/s 263 before issuing show cause notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 271D. Due to this technical defect, the notice u/s 271D will not have legs to stand. 4. The Addl CIT ought to have considered

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Amravati vs. Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate, Daryapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills reported in (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC), dealing with the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, has held that if there is no satisfaction recorded in the order of assessment regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under

Shri Babu Munirathinam, Chennai vs. The JCIT, Ncr-17, Chennai

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 1061/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Babu Munirathinam, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 45/13, Sriuvallur Road, Perambur, Income Tax, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Range 17, Chennai. [Pan:Anypm7361H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

Nanda Kumari v. ITO in TCA No. 968 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018 of Hon’ble Madras High Court, held that no penalty under section 271D of the Act is attracted if the cash obtained from family members as gift. The relevant portions in para 6 of the order are reproduced ... opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities below were reasonable and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is untenable. Moreover, on an identical facts and circumstances in similar issue, in the case of Ms. Nanda Kumari v. ITO (supra

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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

Pushpalatha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1192/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai, CA andFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 54

assessee and held that there is no “reasonable cause” for accepting the cash on account of sale of immovable property and imposed penalty under section 271D of the Act for a sum of Rs.49,10,000/- (being the cash accepted in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS ... filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of argument, assessee had raised several legal grounds such as (i) Order of penalty under section 271D of the Act is time barred (ii) there is no recording of satisfaction in the Assessment Order for initiation of penalty under section

Manisha Vikrant Shah, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1148/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DespandeFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities have gravely erred in levying penalty under section 271D when the penalty order was time barred. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower ... authorities have gravely erred in levying penalty under section 271D when the appellant has established sufficient reasonable cause. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities have gravely erred in levying penalty under section 271D when the penalty order does

Kuldeep Sood, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1745/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 27I

submission, it was contended that the default could be considered either technical or venial breach of the provisions of law and, therefore, no penalty under section 271D was leviable. In view of the above discussion, no penalty under section 271D was leviable. It is well-settled that penalty provision should

Premji Bhuralal Gala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA 440/Mum/2024, ITA

ITA 440/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SRDR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)

Rs.16,30,000/- and there has been contravention of the provisions under Section 269SS of the Act and petitioner was liable to penalty under Section 271D of the Act for failure to comply, then respondents could have commenced action or proceedings towards imposition of penalty under Section 271D

Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte, Chandrapur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Range, Chandrapur

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

ITA 39/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte ITA no.39/Nag./2022 levying penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for ` 12,00,000, for alleged violation of provisions of section 269SS ... Assessing Officer held that the assessee apparently violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and hence liable for penalty under section 271D of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued notice 29/11/2019, under section 274 r/w section 271D of the Act which was served upon the assessee

Gayatri Villa, New Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 616/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271D is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 15. A similar issue came up before the ITAT

Gayatri Villa, New Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range, Meerut

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 615/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271D is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 15. A similar issue came up before the ITAT

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

familiar circumstances, deleted the penalty by observing in para 5 as under: “5.1 The only grievance of the appellant is the levy of penalty under section 271D imposed by the JCIT, Kancheepuram Range 7, vide order dated 12.06.2019 of sum of Rs. 3,03,46,301/-. The JCIT

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

familiar circumstances, deleted the penalty by observing in para 5 as under: “5.1 The only grievance of the appellant is the levy of penalty under section 271D imposed by the JCIT, Kancheepuram Range 7, vide order dated 12.06.2019 of sum of Rs. 3,03,46,301/-. The JCIT