https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200869 The assessing officer disallowed an expenditure claimed by the assessee under Sec.40A(a)(2) due to lack of business justification. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to a revenue appeal. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance amount, emphasizing the need for substantiating expenses paid to a sister concern. The High Court remanded the case for further examination to address the lack of evidence supporting the claimed expenditure. The dispute revolved around substantial payments lacking detailed justification, highlighting the importance of providing primary evidence for significant expenses. en-us Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:08:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200869 The assessing officer disallowed an expenditure claimed by the assessee under Sec.40A(a)(2) due to lack of business justification. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to a revenue appeal. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance amount, emphasizing the need for substantiating expenses paid to a sister concern. The High Court remanded the case for further examination to address the lack of evidence supporting the claimed expenditure. The dispute revolved around substantial payments lacking detailed justification, highlighting the importance of providing primary evidence for significant expenses. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200869