Section 271E

Restrictions on Loans, Deposits & Advances- Section 269SS & 269T

Income Tax - Analysis of Section 269SS of the Act This section was introduced in the Act with the objective that Unaccounted cash found in the course of searches carried out by the Income-tax Department is often explained by taxpayers as representing loans taken from or deposits made by various persons. Unaccounted income is also brought into the [&he...

Read More

Income Tax Law Relating To Cash Transactions

Income Tax - A number of new provisions have been introduced in the Income Tax Act from time to time to put restrictions on cash transactions as well as to incentivise the non-cash transactions. Cash transactions have always played a major role in the Indian Economy and consistently were responsible for generation and accumulation of Black Money. The ...

Read More

Measures to discourage Cash Transactions by CBDT

Income Tax - Measures taken to discourage Cash Transactions and to promote Digital Economy by CBDT Introduction:- a) Sections 269SS and 269T which deals with cash payment and repayment of loans and deposits. b) Both the sections were introduced to curb the black money. Tax evasion is one of the serious problems in India causing economic disparities. c...

Read More

Practical Issues in Penalty U/s. 271D & 271E r.w. Section 269SS and 269T

Income Tax - Provisions Of 269SS, 269T, 271D AND 271E As Per Finance Bill 2014 And Finance Bill 2015 And Some Issues Regarding Penalty U/S 271D, 271E And Relating To Amendments. Consequences of contravention of section 269SS: Section 271D of Income Tax Act 1961 provides that if a loan or deposit is accepted in contravention of the provisions of sectio...

Read More

Loans or Deposits under Sec 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - No person shall accept any loan or deposit in a single day from another person in any form other than account payee cheque or bank draft, if aggregate amount involved is more than Rs 20,000. This provision has come into force to counteract the evasion of tax by mode of acceptance of money in certain cases. The objective is to prevent tra...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

No section 271E penalty if payments were genuine & duly accounted

Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries Limited Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) - Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the lo...

Read More

Section 271E penalty cannot be imposed for Payment for purchases

B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) - B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is elementary to say that the ‘satisfaction’ can only be formed by the person who is competent to impose penalty and not a lower ranking authority. The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus,...

Read More

No Section 271D Penalty for transactions between father & son

Mohammadyusuf R.Dargad Vs ACIT. (ITAT Bangalore) - The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives...

Read More

No Section 271D Penalty for cash received from commission agent against sale of crops

Hardeep. Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) - Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted....

Read More

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court) - Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company....

Read More

Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

Circular No. 10/2016-Income Tax - (26/04/2016) - It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial y...

Read More

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

Circular No. 09/DV/2016 (Departmental View) - (26/04/2016) - It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commi...

Read More

Recent Posts in "Section 271E"

Restrictions on Loans, Deposits & Advances- Section 269SS & 269T

Analysis of Section 269SS of the Act This section was introduced in the Act with the objective that Unaccounted cash found in the course of searches carried out by the Income-tax Department is often explained by taxpayers as representing loans taken from or deposits made by various persons. Unaccounted income is also brought into the [&he...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

No section 271E penalty if payments were genuine & duly accounted

Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries Limited Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Penalty under section 271E for violation of provision of section 269T could not be levied as assessee-company repaid loans advances otherwise than by crossed cheque, however, it substantiated with relevant documents that all the payments made by it were genuine and all the creditors accounted the loans as well as the repayments in their b...

Read More

Section 271E penalty cannot be imposed for Payment for purchases

B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is elementary to say that the ‘satisfaction’ can only be formed by the person who is competent to impose penalty and not a lower ranking authority. The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the […]...

Read More

Income Tax Law Relating To Cash Transactions

A number of new provisions have been introduced in the Income Tax Act from time to time to put restrictions on cash transactions as well as to incentivise the non-cash transactions. Cash transactions have always played a major role in the Indian Economy and consistently were responsible for generation and accumulation of Black Money. The ...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

No Section 271D Penalty for transactions between father & son

Mohammadyusuf R.Dargad Vs ACIT. (ITAT Bangalore)

The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives...

Read More

Measures to discourage Cash Transactions by CBDT

Measures taken to discourage Cash Transactions and to promote Digital Economy by CBDT Introduction:- a) Sections 269SS and 269T which deals with cash payment and repayment of loans and deposits. b) Both the sections were introduced to curb the black money. Tax evasion is one of the serious problems in India causing economic disparities. c...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Practical Issues in Penalty U/s. 271D & 271E r.w. Section 269SS and 269T

Provisions Of 269SS, 269T, 271D AND 271E As Per Finance Bill 2014 And Finance Bill 2015 And Some Issues Regarding Penalty U/S 271D, 271E And Relating To Amendments. Consequences of contravention of section 269SS: Section 271D of Income Tax Act 1961 provides that if a loan or deposit is accepted in contravention of the provisions of sectio...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Loans or Deposits under Sec 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961

No person shall accept any loan or deposit in a single day from another person in any form other than account payee cheque or bank draft, if aggregate amount involved is more than Rs 20,000. This provision has come into force to counteract the evasion of tax by mode of acceptance of money in certain cases. The objective is to prevent tra...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

No Section 271D Penalty for cash received from commission agent against sale of crops

Hardeep. Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted....

Read More

Prosecutions and Punishment under Income Tax Act, 1961

Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against the taxpayers for various offences. In this part you can gain knowledge about the various provisions relating to prosecution which can be launched under the Income-tax Act....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Income Tax Offences liable to prosecution

Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecution for offences committed by the taxpayer. In this part you can gain knowledge about offences in respect of which prosecutions can be launched under the Income-tax Law....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

In the tutorial on Penalties Under the Income-tax Act, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respect of various defaults. Apart from enacting penalty provisions...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Penalties under Income-Tax Act, 1961

Under the Income-tax Act, penalties are levied for various defaults committed by the taxpayer. Some of the penalties are mandatory and a few are at the discretion of the tax authorities. In this part, you can gain knowledge about the provisions relating to various penalties leviable under the Income-tax Act....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Penalties and Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

Penalties and Prosecutions Default in complying with provisions of or with conditions prescribed under the Income-tax Act would attract certain penalty and in critical cases prosecutions as well. The document will provide you information about the punishable offences, prosecutions and the quantum of penalties that can be imposed under the...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Section 271E Penalty for contravening provisions of section 269T

The person who breaches the provisions of section 269T of the Income Tax Act is liable to pay the penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The basic understanding of section 269T states that the person cannot repay any loans / deposits / specified advances in cash if the amount of payment is […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court)

Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company....

Read More

Penalty u/s. 271E cannot be levied in case of bonafide belief

Ms. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttak)

Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief....

Read More

Cash Loan- Penalty justified on failure to establish Business exigency or urgency 

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]...

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Penalty not leviable for cash loan taken/paid to comply re-settlement scheme of BIFR

Monarch Dyestuff Industries And Exports Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty....

Read More

Penalty order barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) is not valid

ITO Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c)....

Read More

No Penalty U/s. 271E on cash refund of advance from customers under Bonafide Belief

M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack)

 M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against [&hel...

Read More

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

CIT Vs Manohar Lal Thakral (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

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....

Read More

HC upheld penalty for Cash Loan exceeding Rs. 20000 Taken & repaid

M. Sougoumarin Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

These appeals are against an order dated 31-3-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai, allowing the appeals, being I.T.A.Nos.262 and 263/Mds/2015, in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 filed by the respondent Revenue and restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 2...

Read More

S. 271D / 271E Penalty not leviable on genuine Cash transaction of convenience

Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate tham in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. Facts of […]...

Read More

No Penalty for cash above Rs. 20000 from relatives due to Business Exigencies

Mr. Girishkumar Popatlal Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

The ld. counsel vehemently stated that the legislative intent in prohibiting the acceptance and repayment of money in cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- is to check the unaccounted money and not to hit the genuine business need....

Read More

S. 269SS: Cash Transactions with Sister-in-Law & Nephew not amounts to Loan

Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The transactions between these family members are neither loans nor deposit and purely a family system and purely a family requirement to help each other in the needy hours, for example medical help, education help and expenses to run the family. That is, one member of the family […]...

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271D for cash deposit with Reasonable cause from identifiable agriculturists not justified

Pr. CIT Vs Tehal Singh Khara & Sons (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Punjab and Haryana High Court held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tehal Singh Khara & Sons that Penalty under section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 not justified for Contravention of section 269SS if assessee had given reasonable cause for entering into the cash transactions, as creditors from whom the cash was received […]...

Read More

Limitation period U/s. 275(1)(c) not applies to penalty proceeding U/s. 271D & 271E

CIT Vs Hissaria Brothers (Supreme Court of India)

Penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under Sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it....

Read More

Limitation for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D & 271E

Circular No. 10/2016-Income Tax (26/04/2016)

It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the cou...

Read More

Limitation commencement for penalty proceedings U/s. 271D &271E

Circular No. 09/DV/2016 (Departmental View) (26/04/2016)

It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.) or at level of t...

Read More

Penalty u/s 271E may not be imposed where circumstances compels assessee to make repayment in cash

Jayantilal Vaishnav HUF Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Jayantilal Vaishnav HUF vs. JCIT that the reasonable cause u/s 273B need to be seen from the context of the situation where a person is reasonably and under bonafide belief of taking a action beyond his control i.e. cause which prevent a reasonable person in ordinary ...

Read More

No Penalty on Return of loan by cash to sister concern under a bonafide belief

Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi)

Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken...

Read More

Penalty u/s 271E not maintainable if notice is issued after the period specified in Section 275(1)(c)

Principal CIT Vs JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply....

Read More

Time limit for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E to be reckoned from date of JCIT Notice

Grihalakhsmi Vision Vs Additional CIT (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam)

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision held that the penalty proceeding under Sec 271D and 271E can be initiated by Joint commissioner only and the limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month of initiation of penalty proceedings by Joint ...

Read More

Penalty u/s 271D & 271E for raising & repayment of loans in cash cannot be imposed if sufficient reasonable cause exist

Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed....

Read More

Penalty u/s 271D & 271E cannot be levied on transaction entered through journal voucher

Goldstar Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., 345 ITR 270, held that settling claims by making journal entries in the respective books is also one of the recognized modes of repaying loan or deposit. In the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect th...

Read More

Advance in cash for Property Covered by Section 269SS & 269T wef 01.06.2015

Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sums and mode of repayment of loans or deposits and specified advances The earlier provisions contained in section 269SS of the Income-tax Act provide that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account [&hellip...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Changes In Direct Tax Provisions Effective from 01-06-2015 along with PPT

As per Section 269SS if specified sum (any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place) taken or accepted in cash is Rs. 20,000 or more , penalty equal to amount taken shall be imposed under S. 271D....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Harsh Penalty for Property Transaction in Cash of Rs. 20,000 or more w.e.f. 1st June, 2015

According to section 269SS of Income Tax Act, while transacting Immovable Property, 100% penalty will be levied if seller has accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000 or more in cash from the buyer. e.g. if for selling an immovable property 'A' has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash from 'B' then 'A' has to pay 100% penalty of Rs. 1 lakh....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

‘JAM’ming currency in Real Estate, Jaitley overlooks villagers?

Measures to curb black money have been on the lips of every Finance Minister and Honorable Minister Shri Arun Jaitley is no exception. As we know, Real Estate business is the largest contributor of black money transactions. He trusts on the JAM (Jandhan, Aadhar, Mobile) generation to move away from such dark deals and build […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Section 269SS not applies to loan between firm and partners

CIT Vs M/s Muthoot Financiers (Delhi High Court)

Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees. ...

Read More

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sunil Kumar Goel (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

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...

Read More

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

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (Rajasthan High Court)

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...

Read More

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

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Saini Medical Store (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

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 be...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,045)
Company Law (6,708)
Custom Duty (8,081)
DGFT (4,386)
Excise Duty (4,406)
Fema / RBI (4,433)
Finance (4,694)
Income Tax (35,069)
SEBI (3,754)
Service Tax (3,626)

Search Posts by Date

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30