<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (8) TMI 471 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331087</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals by the Revenue against the deletion of penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, accepting that the transactions involving cash loans and repayments in the ledger account were advances for the sale of inherited property, not loans or deposits. The agreements for the property sale supported this interpretation, leading to the penalties being deemed unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:21:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 471 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331087</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals by the Revenue against the deletion of penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, accepting that the transactions involving cash loans and repayments in the ledger account were advances for the sale of inherited property, not loans or deposits. The agreements for the property sale supported this interpretation, leading to the penalties being deemed unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>