<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1463 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362636</link>
    <description>Cash payments made for country spirit purchases through a bottling and packaging arrangement were treated as falling within the Rule 6DD exceptions to section 40A(3) because the bottling plant operated under the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2005 and was regulated as a warehouse under the excise framework. The Tribunal accepted that the payments were effectively made to a Government-linked authority under rule 6DD(b), and also that the licensee functioned as an agent of the State Government within rule 6DD(k). Relying on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the disallowance and held that no addition under section 40A(3) could survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:17:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1463 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362636</link>
      <description>Cash payments made for country spirit purchases through a bottling and packaging arrangement were treated as falling within the Rule 6DD exceptions to section 40A(3) because the bottling plant operated under the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2005 and was regulated as a warehouse under the excise framework. The Tribunal accepted that the payments were effectively made to a Government-linked authority under rule 6DD(b), and also that the licensee functioned as an agent of the State Government within rule 6DD(k). Relying on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the disallowance and held that no addition under section 40A(3) could survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>