https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787951 Whether penalty under Section 271D can stand where AO disallowed claimed cash loans and made additions under Section 69, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable because the AO did not accept the loans as such yet concurrently initiated penalty for contravention of Section 269SS. The Tribunal emphasised that levy of penalty requires an undisputed finding of the contravention; inconsistent findings-addition under unexplained investment while treating loans as admitted for penalty-undermine penalty jurisdiction. Outcome: penalty under Section 271D deleted and appeal allowed for the assessee. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Mar 2026 08:36:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787951 Whether penalty under Section 271D can stand where AO disallowed claimed cash loans and made additions under Section 69, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable because the AO did not accept the loans as such yet concurrently initiated penalty for contravention of Section 269SS. The Tribunal emphasised that levy of penalty requires an undisputed finding of the contravention; inconsistent findings-addition under unexplained investment while treating loans as admitted for penalty-undermine penalty jurisdiction. Outcome: penalty under Section 271D deleted and appeal allowed for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787951