https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332075 The High Court upheld penalties imposed under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act for receiving cash deposits exceeding limits set by Section 269-SS. It found the Managing Director's advances constituted loans/deposits, not unilateral acts, rejecting the Tribunal's reasoning. The Court held the company liable to repay, emphasizing the lack of agreement did not alter the transaction nature. The Tribunal's decision was deemed flawed, and penalties were upheld, as no reasonable cause/bona fide belief was proven. The Revenue prevailed, and the Tribunal's ruling was overturned. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 May 2017 12:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332075 The High Court upheld penalties imposed under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act for receiving cash deposits exceeding limits set by Section 269-SS. It found the Managing Director's advances constituted loans/deposits, not unilateral acts, rejecting the Tribunal's reasoning. The Court held the company liable to repay, emphasizing the lack of agreement did not alter the transaction nature. The Tribunal's decision was deemed flawed, and penalties were upheld, as no reasonable cause/bona fide belief was proven. The Revenue prevailed, and the Tribunal's ruling was overturned. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332075