https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267262 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on both issues. The Tribunal was deemed unjustified in accepting additional evidence at the second appellate stage due to unsatisfactory reasons for not producing them earlier. The court found that the transactions constituted loans or deposits, with repeated cash repayments violating Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271E. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:16:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267262 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on both issues. The Tribunal was deemed unjustified in accepting additional evidence at the second appellate stage due to unsatisfactory reasons for not producing them earlier. The court found that the transactions constituted loans or deposits, with repeated cash repayments violating Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271E. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267262