https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6077 The SC upheld the constitutionality of provisions regulating mode of taking/accepting loans and deposits, rejecting the Article 14 challenge to section 269SS and finding legislative competence under the taxing/policy entries. The Court held that entry heads must be given wide scope and ancillary provisions are valid. It found the earlier penal provision (section 276DD) harsh but was subsequently replaced by section 271D removing imprisonment and limiting penalty to a fine equal to the amount; section 273B affords relief where reasonable cause is shown, so the provisions are not unconstitutional as draconian or expropriatory. en-us Fri, 03 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 19:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6077 The SC upheld the constitutionality of provisions regulating mode of taking/accepting loans and deposits, rejecting the Article 14 challenge to section 269SS and finding legislative competence under the taxing/policy entries. The Court held that entry heads must be given wide scope and ancillary provisions are valid. It found the earlier penal provision (section 276DD) harsh but was subsequently replaced by section 271D removing imprisonment and limiting penalty to a fine equal to the amount; section 273B affords relief where reasonable cause is shown, so the provisions are not unconstitutional as draconian or expropriatory. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6077