<?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>2013 (4) TMI 137 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221941</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the addition of the amount paid by the assessee to its commission agent for the assessment year 2004-2005. The Court found that the evidence, including bank cheque clearance statements and correspondence with a trading company, supported the genuineness of the payments. Despite the lack of direct evidence proving the nature of assistance mentioned in the agreement, the Court emphasized that the payments were made through legitimate means and there was no indication of the agent being fake or non-disclosure in tax returns. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law was involved, and similarly dismissed a separate appeal for a different assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 137 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221941</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the addition of the amount paid by the assessee to its commission agent for the assessment year 2004-2005. The Court found that the evidence, including bank cheque clearance statements and correspondence with a trading company, supported the genuineness of the payments. Despite the lack of direct evidence proving the nature of assistance mentioned in the agreement, the Court emphasized that the payments were made through legitimate means and there was no indication of the agent being fake or non-disclosure in tax returns. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law was involved, and similarly dismissed a separate appeal for a different assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>