<?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 (12) TMI 130 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351861</link>
    <description>Certified data purchase and referral fee were held to be genuine business expenditure because the assessee supported both claims with evidence and the Revenue showed no perversity in the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings; the disallowances on those counts were therefore not sustained. Salary and wages stood on a different footing because Form 16 alone was insufficient without salary registers, vouchers, employee particulars or confirmations, and the Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the claim was found perverse on the existing record. That issue was remitted for fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 130 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351861</link>
      <description>Certified data purchase and referral fee were held to be genuine business expenditure because the assessee supported both claims with evidence and the Revenue showed no perversity in the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings; the disallowances on those counts were therefore not sustained. Salary and wages stood on a different footing because Form 16 alone was insufficient without salary registers, vouchers, employee particulars or confirmations, and the Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the claim was found perverse on the existing record. That issue was remitted for fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>