<?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>Court Rules Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) Unjustified; Relationships Alone Insufficient for Payment Rejection Without Evidence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=16827</link>
    <description>Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - AO was not justified in adopting disallowance to the extent of 10% payment under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act solely on the ground that the company to whom the payment was made, was run by the wife of the Director of the assessee company - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:38:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:38:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) Unjustified; Relationships Alone Insufficient for Payment Rejection Without Evidence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=16827</link>
      <description>Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - AO was not justified in adopting disallowance to the extent of 10% payment under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act solely on the ground that the company to whom the payment was made, was run by the wife of the Director of the assessee company - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:38:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=16827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>