<?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 (10) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399063</link>
    <description>The appeals were dismissed as the appellants did not meet the conditions under Rule 6DD to justify cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD aim to regulate business transactions and prevent the use of unaccounted money. The appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption, leading to the rejection of their appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399063</link>
      <description>The appeals were dismissed as the appellants did not meet the conditions under Rule 6DD to justify cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD aim to regulate business transactions and prevent the use of unaccounted money. The appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption, leading to the rejection of their appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>