Follow Us:

Section 269T

Latest Articles


Various Threshold Limits under Income Tax Act

Income Tax : A consolidated guide to Income-tax Act threshold limits for AY 2026-27 covering exemptions, deductions, TDS, TCS, compliance and p...

July 4, 2026 369773 Views 44 comments Print

FAQs on Disallowance of cash expenses or limit on cash transactions

Income Tax : This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic paym...

June 22, 2026 5553 Views 0 comment Print

Prohibited transaction in cash/limit on cash transactions

Income Tax : The Income-tax Act contains strict provisions under Sections 40A(3), 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T to regulate cash transactions, ...

June 10, 2026 33360 Views 0 comment Print

Cash Transaction Limits Under Income Tax Law

Income Tax : The provisions regulate acceptance, payment, and receipt of cash beyond specified limits. They impose strict penalties to discoura...

April 5, 2026 17715 Views 0 comment Print

Avoid 100% Penalty on Cash Loans and Deposits Because ₹20,000 Is the Limit

Income Tax : Covers the latest cash withdrawal, deposit, and loan limits. Takeaway: exceeding thresholds can trigger TDS, penalties, and blocke...

December 31, 2025 2526 Views 0 comment Print


Latest News


SIT report: Restrict Cash Transaction/Holding to curb black money

Income Tax : It is suggested that there should be a positive provision under the I.T. Act that any transaction involving more than Rs.3,00,000/...

July 14, 2016 24229 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Judiciary


No Section 271D Penalty if AO Not Recorded Satisfaction: ITAT Delhi

Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D could not be levied because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction ...

June 25, 2026 345 Views 0 comment Print

Family Cash Transactions Cannot Attract Sections 271D & 271E Penalty: ITAT Rajkot

Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and ...

June 20, 2026 1353 Views 0 comment Print

Chennai ITAT Quashes Section 263 Revision on Excess Stock Taxation

Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 does not permit the PCIT to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer when two ...

June 13, 2026 147 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Quashes Section 263 Revision Because PCIT Raised New Issues Beyond SCN

Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The ...

May 30, 2026 225 Views 0 comment Print

No Section 271D Penalty Without Recorded Satisfaction: Telangana HC

Income Tax : The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded sati...

May 11, 2026 381 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


CBDT notifies more modes of e-payments; 6DD limit reduced to ₹ 10000

Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...

January 29, 2020 14265 Views 0 comment Print

CBDT relaxes PAN requirement for Section 269T reporting in 3CD

Income Tax : G.S.R. 841(E).—In the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Dire...

July 6, 2017 6435 Views 1 comment Print

CBDT amends form 3CD to revise reporting U/s. 269SS & 269T

Income Tax : In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in Appendix II, in Form No. 3CD, for serial number 31 and the entries relating thereto the followin...

July 3, 2017 130914 Views 9 comments Print

Section 269SS and 269T applicable to NBFC: RBI

Fema / RBI : Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended from time to time,...

March 9, 2017 23868 Views 0 comment Print


Share application money cannot be construed as loan or deposit for section 269SS

January 30, 2014 2041 Views 0 comment Print

The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.

No penalty levied on Akhilesh yadav for violation of Sec. 269SS, as reasonable cause was exist

October 28, 2012 6341 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction entered into between the assessee and Samajwadi Party and no addition had been made in this regard. Instead of cash, if the assessee had taken loan through cheque, it would have taken some time for process in clearing. Since the amount was deposited and withdrawn from bank on the same day for making cash payment to the Nazul Authority, there could be no reason to doubt the bona fide of the assessee.

Sec. 269SS Penalty cannot be imposed if cash loan was taken to meet business needs

September 17, 2011 3917 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services.

Penalty U/s. 271E not valid in absence of finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T

January 14, 2011 1686 Views 0 comment Print

Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.

Receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit

May 6, 2009 987 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.

No Penalty for cash loan to Sister Concerns due to business exigency

March 3, 2009 2855 Views 0 comment Print

There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect

Where reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 271D is not justified

July 26, 2007 2325 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof

Sections 269SS have no application in respect of Share Application Money Received in cash

July 12, 2007 1005 Views 0 comment Print

Q.1. What is the definition of MSME? A.1. The Government of India has enacted the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 in terms of which the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises is as under:(a) Enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production, processing or preservation of goods as specified below: (i) A micro enterprise is an enterprise where investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 25 lakh;

Amount paid by firm to partners or vice versa is not a loan

January 23, 2007 1230 Views 0 comment Print

Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions

Penalty not to be imposed unless Assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law

February 22, 2005 2341 Views 0 comment Print

The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031