https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344560 The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that payments were made to persons carrying on business in village Devada, thus not qualifying for the exemption under Rule 6DD(h). The Tribunal's application of Rule 6DD(j) was upheld due to lack of proof of payment genuineness. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the respondent-Revenue, with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:38:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344560 The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that payments were made to persons carrying on business in village Devada, thus not qualifying for the exemption under Rule 6DD(h). The Tribunal's application of Rule 6DD(j) was upheld due to lack of proof of payment genuineness. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the respondent-Revenue, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344560