<?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>2020 (9) TMI 492 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398373</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions or demonstrate business expediency justifying the payments. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity for substantiating genuine transactions with concrete evidence to claim exemptions under Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 492 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398373</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions or demonstrate business expediency justifying the payments. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity for substantiating genuine transactions with concrete evidence to claim exemptions under Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>