https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326971 The High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal to uphold the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The Court found that the payment received by the assessee was determined to be a loan, not an advance for property sale as claimed, due to discrepancies in the agreement, lack of supporting materials, and inconsistencies in explanations provided. Despite the assessee's contentions and clarification from the payor, the Court sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the lack of substantiation for the advance theory and supporting the restoration of the penalty. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2022 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326971 The High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal to uphold the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The Court found that the payment received by the assessee was determined to be a loan, not an advance for property sale as claimed, due to discrepancies in the agreement, lack of supporting materials, and inconsistencies in explanations provided. Despite the assessee's contentions and clarification from the payor, the Court sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the lack of substantiation for the advance theory and supporting the restoration of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326971