https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373788 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the cash receipts were not loans or deposits but disclosed income. The Court stressed the Revenue's burden of proof and the absence of evidence of a loan or deposit, leading to the penalty's dismissal under Section 271D. It was ruled that Section 269SS applies only to cash loans or advances, which were not proven in this case. The judgment focused on proving the lender-depositor relationship for penalty imposition, ultimately dismissing the penalty due to the lack of violation of Section 269SS. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jan 2019 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373788 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the cash receipts were not loans or deposits but disclosed income. The Court stressed the Revenue's burden of proof and the absence of evidence of a loan or deposit, leading to the penalty's dismissal under Section 271D. It was ruled that Section 269SS applies only to cash loans or advances, which were not proven in this case. The judgment focused on proving the lender-depositor relationship for penalty imposition, ultimately dismissing the penalty due to the lack of violation of Section 269SS. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373788