https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438945 The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed by the AO under Sections 271D and 271E for violations of Sections 269SS and 269T. It found the penalty order was within the limitation period, the Addl. CIT had jurisdiction, transactions were loans subject to Sections 269SS and 269T, and cash dealings were not justified by business exigency. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438945 The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed by the AO under Sections 271D and 271E for violations of Sections 269SS and 269T. It found the penalty order was within the limitation period, the Addl. CIT had jurisdiction, transactions were loans subject to Sections 269SS and 269T, and cash dealings were not justified by business exigency. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438945