<?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 (9) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332037</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the transactions did not violate Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. It held that no penalty under Section 271E was applicable as the transactions were genuine and not aimed at tax evasion. The court emphasized interpreting tax provisions in line with commercial practices while maintaining the legislative intent to discourage cash transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 19:03:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332037</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the transactions did not violate Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. It held that no penalty under Section 271E was applicable as the transactions were genuine and not aimed at tax evasion. The court emphasized interpreting tax provisions in line with commercial practices while maintaining the legislative intent to discourage cash transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>