<?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>2016 (9) TMI 1000 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332739</link>
    <description>Cash payments for kerosene oil purchases were held to fall within the statutory exception in Rule 6DD(h) because the business was carried on from a village without banking facilities and cheque payments were impracticable in the regulated distribution arrangement. On those undisputed facts, section 40A(3) disallowance could not be sustained, and the expenditure was allowed. The reasoning was supported by earlier jurisdictional precedent on similar facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:24:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1000 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332739</link>
      <description>Cash payments for kerosene oil purchases were held to fall within the statutory exception in Rule 6DD(h) because the business was carried on from a village without banking facilities and cheque payments were impracticable in the regulated distribution arrangement. On those undisputed facts, section 40A(3) disallowance could not be sustained, and the expenditure was allowed. The reasoning was supported by earlier jurisdictional precedent on similar facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>