← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271E”

PenaltySection 271ESection 271E137 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271E is CIT v. Hissaria Bros. (291 ITR 244), cited in 132 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271E

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.

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi
255 ITR 258 · 2002 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits certain cash loans and deposits. This ruling is foundational for penalties under Section 271D and considering exemptions under Section 273B.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271E

Sunil Dandriyal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

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

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

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

Sunil Dandrayal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

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

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bhrathi Consumer Care Products Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 249/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

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. Further, this Bench of the Tribunal

ACIT -14 (2), Mumbai vs. Redwood I.T. Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1643/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

cause' would have wider connotation than the expression 'sufficient cause'.Therefore, the expression 'reasonable cause' in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E would have to be construed liberally depending upon the facts of each case. 24. In the present case, the cause shown by the assessee

M/S. Arun Pulvarising Industries, Pratapgarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Arun Pulvarising Acit, Chittorgarh, Industries, M.G. Road, Vs Rajasthan Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Pan: Aadfa0793K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Arun Padliya & Shri Abhinav Jaion, Cas Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 28Th June, 2018 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271E Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “01. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Learned Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Cit(A), Udaipur Erred In Facts As Well As In Law Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271E Of Rs. 3,90,000/- On The Assessee Firm Without Considering The M/S Arun Pulvarising Industries

Section 271ESection 273B

have heard both the parties and perused the records. 3 M/s Arun Pulvarising Industries 5. The only issue for our consideration penalty under section 271E of the Act. The assessee has given Rs. 3,90,000/- in cash to Arun Kumar Gandhi (HUF). The Assessing Officer was of the opinion ... that it was repayment of loan in cash and hence levied penalty under section 271E. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty. We have observed that assessee firm was having a current account in books of Arun Kumar Gandhi (HUF), copy of which has been filed at page

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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 concemed, 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. 5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been deleted by the Tribunal

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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 concemed, 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. 5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been deleted by the Tribunal

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

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 concemed, 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. 5. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,02,6107- which has been deleted by the Tribunal

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax.Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 73/RJT/2023[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rajkot on the ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 5- same ground confirming the order imposing penalty under Section 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- passed by the Ld. AO alleging contravention of the provision of Section 269T ... challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- both dated 16.07.2003. Initially, when appeals were filed against order dated

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rajkot on the ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 5- same ground confirming the order imposing penalty under Section 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- passed by the Ld. AO alleging contravention of the provision of Section 269T ... challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- both dated 16.07.2003. Initially, when appeals were filed against order dated

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rajkot on the ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 5- same ground confirming the order imposing penalty under Section 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- passed by the Ld. AO alleging contravention of the provision of Section 269T ... challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- both dated 16.07.2003. Initially, when appeals were filed against order dated

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Rajkot on the ITA Nos. 215/Rjt/2022 & 3 Ors. (Jamnadas R. Vikani vs. DCIT) - 5- same ground confirming the order imposing penalty under Section 271E of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- passed by the Ld. AO alleging contravention of the provision of Section 269T ... challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and levy of penalty under Section 271E r.w.s. 269T of the Act to the tune of Rs.23,45,415/- both dated 16.07.2003. Initially, when appeals were filed against order dated

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)
Section 269S

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. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4557/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

also without merit in the light of the reasoning provided by the CIT(A). We thus see no merit in imposition of penalty under Section 271E of the Act for similar reasons as challenged in ITA No.4552/Del/2017 Assessment Year 1993-94. We thus decline to interfere with the order

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4552/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

also without merit in the light of the reasoning provided by the CIT(A). We thus see no merit in imposition of penalty under Section 271E of the Act for similar reasons as challenged in ITA No.4552/Del/2017 Assessment Year 1993-94. We thus decline to interfere with the order

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

which penalty is to be levied. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the context of penalty under section 271E in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ... order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceedings 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. The assessee also relied on the decision

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

which penalty is to be levied. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the context of penalty under section 271E in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ... order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceedings 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. The assessee also relied on the decision

Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna District vs. JCIT, Range-1, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad TalluriFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

order the Assessing Officer 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. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.” The Ld.Counsel

Green Cube Mercahntile Consultants Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr . CIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 743/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Sapna Bhatia
Section 263Section 269SSection 271E

order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the PCIT wherein the Assessing Officer did not levy penalty under section 271E and 271D of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T in view of the decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Surat vs. Shri Amatlal Devchandbhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 218/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.C.I.T., Late Amratlal Devchandbhai Patel, Central Circle-4, Through L/H-Jignesh Amritlal Patel, Vs. Surat. 8, Pratistha Park, Sarelawadi, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3569 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269TSection 271ESection 27ISection 292B

r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 30/12/2017. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271E of the Act for contravention of provisions of Section 269T of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty under Section 271E ... JCIT) after receipt of reference from Assessing Officer/DCIT on 22/02/2018, issued show cause notice to the assessee on 05/03/2018 as to why penalty under section 271E be not levied on the assessee. In response to show cause notice, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed his reply