← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271E”

PenaltySection 271ESection 271E137 judgments

VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY BOLLAPRAGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1961/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54F

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 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” We find that the aforesaid view taken ... would be attracted on a person accepting loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act, penalty under Section 271E of the Act would be imposable on a person who makes or repays the loan or deposit or specified advance in contravention of Section 269T

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

order the Assessing\nOfficer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E\nis concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such\npenalty could be levied.”\n10.\nThus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab\nand Haryana High Court as cited hereinabove. In fact, on the\nidentical set of facts the penalty under Section 271E was deleted\nby the Tribunal and further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. 9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

order the Assessing\nOfficer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E\nis concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such\npenalty could be levied.”\n10.\nThus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab\nand Haryana High Court as cited hereinabove. In fact, on the\nidentical set of facts the penalty under Section 271E was deleted\nby the Tribunal and further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. 9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

order the Assessing\nOfficer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E\nis concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such\npenalty could be levied.”\n10. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab\nand Haryana High Court as cited hereinabove. In fact, on the\nidentical set of facts the penalty under Section 271E was deleted\nby the Tribunal and further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. 9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

order the Assessing\nOfficer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E\nis concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such\npenalty could be levied.”\n10.\nThus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab\nand Haryana High Court as cited hereinabove. In fact, on the\nidentical set of facts the penalty under Section 271E was deleted\nby the Tribunal and further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. 9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

loan/deposits of Smt. Kusum Lata\nThakral, through account payee cheque or account\npayee drafts to M/s. Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd.,\nGurgaon and, therefore, penalty under Section 271E\nwas leviable.\n5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty\namounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been\ndeleted by the Tribunal ... order passed by the\nHon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as cited\nhereinabove. In fact, on the identical set of facts the penalty\nunder Section 271E was deleted by the Tribunal and further\nupheld by the Hon'ble High Court. 9. Having regard to the facts\nand circumstances

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 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 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. 21. We further observe that the identical issue

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, 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

loan & cash transaction, same was genuine & bonafide, made under exceptional circumstances without any intention to evade tax, & hence does not attract penalty under section 271E, as per settled judicial precedents. 4. That the original order passed by the Assessing Officer did not warrant any interference as the AO, after ... 269T. 5. That the provisions of section 269T are not applicable in the facts & circumstances of the appellant's case, & hence the consequential penalty under section 271E is unsustainable in law. 6. That mere book entry cannot entail a default of taking / re-paying the loan in cash unless

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2926/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2925/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2924/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2922/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter

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

ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025 wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, In so far as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed ... loan/deposits of Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral, through account payee cheque or account payee drafts to M/s. Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and, therefore, penalty under Section 271E was leviable. 14 ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025 5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been

LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6482/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

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 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 7 Likhmaram, Mumbai. 7. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme ... loan/deposits of Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral, through account payee cheque or account payee drafts to M/s. Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and, therefore, penalty under Section 271E was leviable. 5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been deleted by the Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

ITA 2226/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 27I

though in that order the Assessing officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the act. Thus, insofar as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 6.5.8 Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 2225/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 27I

though in that order the Assessing officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the act. Thus, insofar as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 6.5.8 Further

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7