<?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>2002 (3) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12413</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 269SS was not attracted where loan amounts were received through crossed cheques and credited through the banking channel, with the Tribunal finding the transactions genuine, bona fide, and supported by banking records. The court treated the use of crossed cheques as only a minor deviation from account-payee cheques and found that the statutory mischief targeted by section 269SS was not triggered on those facts. Because the determination turned on factual findings about the nature and genuineness of the transactions, no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12413</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 269SS was not attracted where loan amounts were received through crossed cheques and credited through the banking channel, with the Tribunal finding the transactions genuine, bona fide, and supported by banking records. The court treated the use of crossed cheques as only a minor deviation from account-payee cheques and found that the statutory mischief targeted by section 269SS was not triggered on those facts. Because the determination turned on factual findings about the nature and genuineness of the transactions, no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, and the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>