Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.186

Section 269ST of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 186 (Mode of undertaking transactions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 186 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 269ST is CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295 (83 ITR 369), cited in 94 of the 204 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 269ST

CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295
83 ITR 369 · 1972 · Supreme Court
94
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of findings in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must discharge the burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars with additional material.

CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.
285 ITR 221 · 2006 · High Court
62
citing judgments

Money received by a company as share application money from directors or shareholders, especially when no interest is charged and held in a current account, does not constitute a 'loan or deposit' under Section 269SS. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D for such transactions.

Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India
1 SCC 508 · 1997 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

Retracted confessions or admissions made under oath are binding on the assessee unless it is proven that the statement was involuntary, made under coercion, or duress. Income Tax officers are not police officers, making such admissions valid evidence.

Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
379 ITR 100 · 2015 · High Court
42
citing judgments

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt Ltd (supra), Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal in AIR 1979 SC 861, Sudharshan Amin vs ACIT
35 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Retraction of a statement recorded under oath during a search is not accepted unless supported by strong and contemporaneous evidence, especially when corroborative documents and seized materials support the additions.

PCIT v. Roshan Lal Sancheti
150 Taxmann.com 227 · 2023 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Belated and unsupported retractions of statements made during a search or seizure are meaningless and will not be considered by the Assessing Officer. Such retractions must be substantiated with evidence.

CIT v. Lumax Industries Ltd.
171 Taxmann 81 · 2008 · High Court
34
citing judgments
Siro Clinpharm (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
177 TTJ 609 · 2016 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Amendments introduced with a retrospective effect, like the Explanation to section 92B, are applied prospectively if courts have held them to have a prospective effect. This principle is applied by analogy to amendments in section 115BBE.

ACIT v. Conor Granito (P.) Ltd.
159 Taxmann.com 1209 · 2024 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Fixing a percentage of disallowance for bogus purchases must have a rational and non-arbitrary basis. Selective reliance on parts of a statement made under Section 132(4) while rejecting other parts is impermissible.

262 ITR 260 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax-VI v. Worldwide Townships Project Ltd.
367 ITR 433 · 2014 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Transactions settled by journal entry, without actual cash movement, do not violate Section 269SS or Section 269T, and consequently, penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E are not leviable.

Judgments on Section 269ST

Kanakalata Mallick, B-Fifty Five, Sector-Eight vs. JCIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.363/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Kanaklata Mallick, Vs Jcit, Cuttack B-Fifty Five, Sector-Eight, Cda, Odisha-753014 Pan No. :Acspm 3665 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.09.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056301242(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is In Regard To The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271Da Of The Act For Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 269St Of The Act. Ld. Jcit Has Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S.271Da Of The Act By Issuing A Show Cause Notice Dated 01.10.2021 & Thereafter Levied The Penalty Of Rs.5,00,000/- Vide Impugned Order Dated 27.04.2022. In First Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Penalty, Therefore, The Assessee Is Before Us In The Present Appeal. 3. During The Course Of Arguments, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Received More Than 90% Of The Consideration

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 26Section 269SSection 271D

M/S. Ramesh Chandra Parekh., Kolkata vs. ITO, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1259/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1259/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Ramesh Chandra Parekh…..…......................…...……………....Appellant City Centre, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadfr2844L] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Da Of The Act On Account Of Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St For Accepting Cash Payment More Than The Prescribed Limit Of Rs.2,00,000/- In An Aggregate From A Person In Respect Of A Single Transaction. 3. The Ld. Counsel, At The Outset, Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St Was Not Intentional, Rather, The

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Dinyar Bahadur Balsara, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2341/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2341/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dinyar Bahadur Balsara बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(2) R. No. 39, 189, Hirabai Peti Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Alibhai Maharishi Karve Road, Premaji Road. Opp. Grant Mumbai-400020. Road Station (E), Mumbai- 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrpb4691D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-49, Mumbai Dated 20.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To My Notice That Due To Restriction Imposed (Limit On Cash Transaction) By The Finance Act 2017 U/S 269St Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Which Came Into Force From 01.04.2017, The Assessee Got Incorporated Seven (7) Private Limited Companies For “Forex” Business Which Were Incorporated Only From Ay. 2018-19 Onwards; & There Was Neither Any Private Limited Company Incorporated/Existing Nor Any Transaction Of Forex In The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay. 2016-17. & The Main Allegation Of Ao Is That Those Seven (7) Companies

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 269S