<?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 (12) TMI 549 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335904</link>
    <description>Cash payments for country spirit purchases were considered in light of section 40A(3) and the West Bengal excise regulatory framework. Because the payment was made by direct deposit into the seller&#039;s bank account, the recipient was identifiable, and the payment method was mandated by statutory excise rules, the expenditure was treated as genuine and consistent with the object of the anti-evasion provision. The transaction was held to fall within the protective scope of rule 6DD exceptions, including payments made to the Government in legal tender and payments routed through an agent required to pay on behalf of the payer. The disallowance was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 18:41:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 549 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335904</link>
      <description>Cash payments for country spirit purchases were considered in light of section 40A(3) and the West Bengal excise regulatory framework. Because the payment was made by direct deposit into the seller&#039;s bank account, the recipient was identifiable, and the payment method was mandated by statutory excise rules, the expenditure was treated as genuine and consistent with the object of the anti-evasion provision. The transaction was held to fall within the protective scope of rule 6DD exceptions, including payments made to the Government in legal tender and payments routed through an agent required to pay on behalf of the payer. The disallowance was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>