<?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>2020 (7) TMI 392 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396723</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that transactions labeled as loans in account books may not always meet legal loan criteria, especially in family contexts. The judgment emphasized the need to substantiate claims and differentiate genuine loans from intra-family fund transfers to avoid tax law penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:29:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 392 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396723</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that transactions labeled as loans in account books may not always meet legal loan criteria, especially in family contexts. The judgment emphasized the need to substantiate claims and differentiate genuine loans from intra-family fund transfers to avoid tax law penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>