Section 271E of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.453

Section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 453 (Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 188) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 453 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 271E is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (56 ITR 198), cited in 230 of the 968 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271E

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.

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.

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 on Section 271E

R.Bhooma Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Stahl India Pvt.Ltd, Kanchipuram

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 322/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.322/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit M/S. Stahl India Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 1A, Sargunar Salai,Chrompet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-3208-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sriram Seshadhri (Ca)- Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Deletion Of Penalty U/S 271E For Rs.106.73 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 By First Appellate Authority Vide Impugned Order Dated 16.01.2023, The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 16-01-2023 In The Matter Of Impugned Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271E Of The Act Vide

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA)- Ld. AR
Section 269TSection 269tSection 271ESection 271F

Vision Enterprises, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 192/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay GargFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 269TSection 271ESection 40