<?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>2006 (3) TMI 216 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63824</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed two appeals where the Assessing Officer disallowed cash payments made to the Excise Department on behalf of suppliers under section 40A(3). The Tribunal found the payments genuine and necessary for business, exempting them from the section&#039;s provisions. The absence of a bank account and business compulsion were considered in line with a Delhi High Court ruling, resulting in the deletion of the disallowances in both cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 216 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63824</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed two appeals where the Assessing Officer disallowed cash payments made to the Excise Department on behalf of suppliers under section 40A(3). The Tribunal found the payments genuine and necessary for business, exempting them from the section&#039;s provisions. The absence of a bank account and business compulsion were considered in line with a Delhi High Court ruling, resulting in the deletion of the disallowances in both cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>