https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432079 Concurrent findings that a plaintiff advanced a loan and that the promissory note was duly executed could not be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The court accepted oral and documentary evidence proving the loan and held that the defendant failed to show forgery or disprove the signatures. It also held that a solitary loan transaction did not amount to money-lending business, and that Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act did not defeat a recovery claim merely because the loan was taken in cash. Closure of the defendant's cross-examination was upheld because repeated adjournments and lack of diligence showed adequate opportunity had been given. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2022 08:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432079 Concurrent findings that a plaintiff advanced a loan and that the promissory note was duly executed could not be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The court accepted oral and documentary evidence proving the loan and held that the defendant failed to show forgery or disprove the signatures. It also held that a solitary loan transaction did not amount to money-lending business, and that Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act did not defeat a recovery claim merely because the loan was taken in cash. Closure of the defendant's cross-examination was upheld because repeated adjournments and lack of diligence showed adequate opportunity had been given. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432079