Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.185, 189

Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 185 (Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sum) and section 189 (Interpretation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 185 of the 2025 ActRead section 189 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 269SS is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (56 ITR 198), cited in 230 of the 1,429 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 269SS

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT
82 ITR 913 · 1971 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments
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.

CIT v. Anwar Ali
76 ITR 696 · 1970 · Supreme Court
92
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment proceedings. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and cannot be levied mechanically merely because an addition to income has been made.

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. 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 on Section 269SS

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

M/S. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1793/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 269S