<?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>2017 (10) TMI 597 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349442</link>
    <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the transactions were exempt under Rule 6DD, and the assessee adequately proved the genuineness of the purchases. The court upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and accepted the reported yield of rice from paddy. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 597 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349442</link>
      <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the transactions were exempt under Rule 6DD, and the assessee adequately proved the genuineness of the purchases. The court upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and accepted the reported yield of rice from paddy. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>