https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86114 HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:15 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86114 HC held that receiving Rs. 1.5 crore in cash violating Section 269ST of Income Tax Act does not render the underlying collaboration agreement void. While Section 271DA imposes penalty on cash recipients, it only prescribes fiscal penalties without invalidating the transaction. The defendant, being solely culpable as recipient, cannot invoke statutory violation to escape liability. Following the principle established that 'in pari delicto' applies only when both parties share equal responsibility for illegality, the defendant cannot retain money under guise of statutory violation when penal liability rests solely with them. The determination of tax violations falls under Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction per Section 271D, and absent proven tax evasion intent, no statutory bar prevents civil recovery proceedings. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC rejected. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:15 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86114