Section 271D of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.450

Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 450 (Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 185) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 450 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 271D is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (56 ITR 198), cited in 230 of the 1,725 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271D

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.

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.

Judgments on Section 271D

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

Manoj Kumar, Jaunpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle Faizabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/VNS/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi29 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Manoj Kumar, Vs Dcit, Mandi Ahmad Khan, Range-1, Sadar, Jaunpur. Varanasi. Uttar Pradesh – 222 002. Pan: Abbpk0014G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Garg, Advocate & Shri Shubham Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 20.06.2022 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed Two Appeals Before The Ld.Cit(A), Namely, The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Another Appeal Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271D Of The Act. Subsequent To Filing Of These Appeals, The Assessee Settled The Dispute With Regard To The Penalty Levied U/S 271D Of The Act Under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. However, While Adjudicating The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ld.Cit(A) Erroneously Presumed That The Assessee Has Settled The Dispute Under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 And, Accordingly, Dismissed The Appeal. He Submitted That The Assessee Has Not Settled The Dispute Arising Out Of The Assessment Order And, Hence, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Not Correct In Passing The Impugned Order Under Wrong Presumption. Accordingly, He Prayed That All The Issues Contested In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld.Cit(A) For Adjudicating Them On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271D