<?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>2025 (4) TMI 2151 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472053</link>
    <description>Cash payments to group concerns against purchases recorded in a running account or against debit balances arising from sales do not constitute repayment of a loan or deposit for Section 269T purposes. A payment that did repay a loan through a running business account nevertheless fell outside the pre-amendment provision, which applied only to deposits; loans became covered from 1 June 2002. Section 269T was therefore not contravened, and penalty under Section 271E was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 2151 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472053</link>
      <description>Cash payments to group concerns against purchases recorded in a running account or against debit balances arising from sales do not constitute repayment of a loan or deposit for Section 269T purposes. A payment that did repay a loan through a running business account nevertheless fell outside the pre-amendment provision, which applied only to deposits; loans became covered from 1 June 2002. Section 269T was therefore not contravened, and penalty under Section 271E was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>