<?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>2003 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11849</link>
    <description>Cash payments by a sub-broker for share transactions were treated as falling within the exception to disallowance under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) because the cash book recorded the payments, the counterparties were identifiable, and confirmations were on record. The transactions were not disputed and their genuineness was not challenged, so the material supported the assessee&#039;s claim that the payments were made due to the peculiar nature of the business. The Tribunal&#039;s view that no evidence existed to invoke the exception was contrary to the record, and the disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11849</link>
      <description>Cash payments by a sub-broker for share transactions were treated as falling within the exception to disallowance under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) because the cash book recorded the payments, the counterparties were identifiable, and confirmations were on record. The transactions were not disputed and their genuineness was not challenged, so the material supported the assessee&#039;s claim that the payments were made due to the peculiar nature of the business. The Tribunal&#039;s view that no evidence existed to invoke the exception was contrary to the record, and the disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>