https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346230 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and Tribunal regarding the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It upheld that the transactions were genuine, involving identifiable agriculturists, and not aimed at tax evasion. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a "reasonable cause" for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, which was found in this case. The exclusion from Section 269SS was justified as the transactions had a reasonable cause and were not for tax evasion purposes. Past judgments by the Punjab & Haryana High Court were considered but did not benefit the appellant. en-us Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346230 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and Tribunal regarding the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It upheld that the transactions were genuine, involving identifiable agriculturists, and not aimed at tax evasion. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a "reasonable cause" for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, which was found in this case. The exclusion from Section 269SS was justified as the transactions had a reasonable cause and were not for tax evasion purposes. Past judgments by the Punjab & Haryana High Court were considered but did not benefit the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346230