<?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 (11) TMI 1034 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335016</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act was not justified as exemptions under rule 6DD(b) and rule 6DD(k) applied. The genuineness of transactions was acknowledged, and the payments were made directly into the supplier&#039;s bank account, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent tax evasion. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowance for all the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 08:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1034 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335016</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act was not justified as exemptions under rule 6DD(b) and rule 6DD(k) applied. The genuineness of transactions was acknowledged, and the payments were made directly into the supplier&#039;s bank account, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent tax evasion. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowance for all the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>