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

Devasagayam Arulanandhu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2359/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2359/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Devasagayam Arulanandhu The Assistant Commissioner Of 7/3 Subramania Nagar Vs. Income Tax Cross Street, Kodambakkam Circle 1 Ltu Chennai – 600 024. Chennai [Pan: Aeapa6863M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.02.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld. Cit(A)"], Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 01.03.2022 Passed U/S.271D Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Assessment Unit

For Appellant: Shri.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

Velji Parsotambhai Gohel, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 283/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.283/Rjt/2026 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 Velji Parsotambhai Gohel, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bhaktidham Society, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Upleta, Rajkot, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Gujarat-360490 "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं Pan/Gir No.: Aempg7710B /. /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/06/2026 :: Order :: Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 10.12.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 271D Of The Act, On 26.12.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.Ground No. 1-Order Is Bad In Law Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Is Bad In Law & Without Appropriate Jurisdiction. 2. Ground No. 2-Invalid Initiation Of Penalty Proceeding U/S. 271D Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Initiating Penalty Proceeding U/S 271D Of The Act, Whereas Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Validity Of The Same. 3. Ground No. 3-No Satisfaction Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 269SSection 271D