<?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 (9) TMI 865 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367129</link>
    <description>Genuine cash payments made under a regulated excise payment mechanism, where the payee is identifiable and the amount is traceable through bank deposit, fell within Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k), so disallowance under section 40A(3) was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted additions for alleged out-of-books and undisclosed purchases because bank records, confirmations, TCS details, and surrounding documents supported the assessee&#039;s explanation and rebutted the inference of unrecorded transactions. However, the partial disallowance of expenses was sustained because the assessee failed to produce books, vouchers, or credible proof, and the estimate made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 865 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367129</link>
      <description>Genuine cash payments made under a regulated excise payment mechanism, where the payee is identifiable and the amount is traceable through bank deposit, fell within Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k), so disallowance under section 40A(3) was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted additions for alleged out-of-books and undisclosed purchases because bank records, confirmations, TCS details, and surrounding documents supported the assessee&#039;s explanation and rebutted the inference of unrecorded transactions. However, the partial disallowance of expenses was sustained because the assessee failed to produce books, vouchers, or credible proof, and the estimate made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>