https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12532 The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition under section 40A(3) for disallowed expenditures, finding that payments were consciously split to circumvent the law. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim under rule 6DD(j) was not applicable. The High Court upheld the disallowance of credit advanced out of agricultural income, stating the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of substantiating claims with evidence to prevent disallowances under Income-tax Act provisions. en-us Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2009 18:34:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12532 The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition under section 40A(3) for disallowed expenditures, finding that payments were consciously split to circumvent the law. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim under rule 6DD(j) was not applicable. The High Court upheld the disallowance of credit advanced out of agricultural income, stating the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of substantiating claims with evidence to prevent disallowances under Income-tax Act provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12532