https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16510 The HC directed the Tribunal to refer to the Court under s.256(2) the discrete legal question whether two cash receipts of Rs.20,000 each were "Amanat" and thus outside the scope of "loan" or "deposit" under s.269SS so that penalty under s.271D would not be leviable. The HC did not decide the substantive characterisation, treated its factual observations as obiter, and refused to broaden the reference to encompass the assessee's other pleaded grounds (reasonable cause/bona fide belief and consistency), which remain undecided for subsequent proceedings. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2025 18:31:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16510 The HC directed the Tribunal to refer to the Court under s.256(2) the discrete legal question whether two cash receipts of Rs.20,000 each were "Amanat" and thus outside the scope of "loan" or "deposit" under s.269SS so that penalty under s.271D would not be leviable. The HC did not decide the substantive characterisation, treated its factual observations as obiter, and refused to broaden the reference to encompass the assessee's other pleaded grounds (reasonable cause/bona fide belief and consistency), which remain undecided for subsequent proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16510