https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766597 Delhi HC rejected defendant's plea to dismiss recovery suit despite cash transaction violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act. Defendant received Rs. 1.5 crore in cash under collaboration agreement and sought dismissal claiming transaction was illegal. Court held that Section 271DA penalty applies only to cash recipient, making defendant culpable party. Relying on Loop Telecom SC precedent, court ruled defendant cannot benefit from own wrongdoing or unjustly enrich himself. Statutory violation doesn't render underlying agreement void but only attracts fiscal penalty. Since plaintiff merely discharged contractual obligation while defendant violated law, restitution principle under Contract Act Section 65 applies. Court found no legal bar preventing recovery suit's maintainability. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766597 Delhi HC rejected defendant's plea to dismiss recovery suit despite cash transaction violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act. Defendant received Rs. 1.5 crore in cash under collaboration agreement and sought dismissal claiming transaction was illegal. Court held that Section 271DA penalty applies only to cash recipient, making defendant culpable party. Relying on Loop Telecom SC precedent, court ruled defendant cannot benefit from own wrongdoing or unjustly enrich himself. Statutory violation doesn't render underlying agreement void but only attracts fiscal penalty. Since plaintiff merely discharged contractual obligation while defendant violated law, restitution principle under Contract Act Section 65 applies. Court found no legal bar preventing recovery suit's maintainability. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766597