https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177804 Penalty under s 271D for alleged contravention of s 269SS was examined where cash was received as temporary advances for making advance excise duty payments. The ITAT held that the transactions were genuine and did not attract the mischief of s 269SS, and that "reasonable cause" under s 273B must be applied pragmatically in light of business exigencies; absence of proved urgency was not decisive. It further held that the receipts, being temporary advances without stipulated tenure or interest, were not clearly "loans or deposits" and were outside s 269SS, and any excess amount retained did not warrant differential treatment. Penalty was cancelled and any amount collected was directed to be refunded. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 19:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177804 Penalty under s 271D for alleged contravention of s 269SS was examined where cash was received as temporary advances for making advance excise duty payments. The ITAT held that the transactions were genuine and did not attract the mischief of s 269SS, and that "reasonable cause" under s 273B must be applied pragmatically in light of business exigencies; absence of proved urgency was not decisive. It further held that the receipts, being temporary advances without stipulated tenure or interest, were not clearly "loans or deposits" and were outside s 269SS, and any excess amount retained did not warrant differential treatment. Penalty was cancelled and any amount collected was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177804