Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected.
HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
