<?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>2012 (8) TMI 674 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215995</link>
    <description>Disallowances in income-tax proceedings must rest on specific, verifiable findings, not general suspicion. Purchases from agriculturists supported by self-made vouchers were allowed where no defect in the vouchers was identified and the trade context made regular bills impracticable. Section 40A(3) could not apply because the cash payment was not shown to be an expenditure covered by the provision. Interest disallowance based on alleged unproved credits and debit balances in partners&#039; current accounts was unsustainable without a separate, factual basis. An ad hoc disallowance of cooly and delivery charges also failed because no concrete voucher defect was pointed out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 674 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215995</link>
      <description>Disallowances in income-tax proceedings must rest on specific, verifiable findings, not general suspicion. Purchases from agriculturists supported by self-made vouchers were allowed where no defect in the vouchers was identified and the trade context made regular bills impracticable. Section 40A(3) could not apply because the cash payment was not shown to be an expenditure covered by the provision. Interest disallowance based on alleged unproved credits and debit balances in partners&#039; current accounts was unsustainable without a separate, factual basis. An ad hoc disallowance of cooly and delivery charges also failed because no concrete voucher defect was pointed out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>