<?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 (7) TMI 1168 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363860</link>
    <description>Payments made for country spirit under a statutory excise framework, by deposit into the wholesale licensee&#039;s bank account, were treated as covered by the recognised exceptions to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the prescribed banking mechanism and the wholesale licensee&#039;s statutory role brought the transaction within the payment exceptions, so the disallowance was not sustainable. By contrast, the addition based on a difference in purchases and consequential profit was sustained because the assessee offered no satisfactory explanation and did not advance arguments on that ground. The appeal therefore succeeded only on the section 40A(3) issue and otherwise failed, resulting in partial relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1168 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363860</link>
      <description>Payments made for country spirit under a statutory excise framework, by deposit into the wholesale licensee&#039;s bank account, were treated as covered by the recognised exceptions to disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the prescribed banking mechanism and the wholesale licensee&#039;s statutory role brought the transaction within the payment exceptions, so the disallowance was not sustainable. By contrast, the addition based on a difference in purchases and consequential profit was sustained because the assessee offered no satisfactory explanation and did not advance arguments on that ground. The appeal therefore succeeded only on the section 40A(3) issue and otherwise failed, resulting in partial relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>