https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413390 Additional evidence for travelling claims was not admitted under Rule 46A because the assessee failed to show sufficient cause or produce documentary proof that the foreign travel was wholly for business purposes, so the disallowance was sustained. Salary disallowance was also upheld because the vouchers, signatures and supporting records were defective or unavailable, and the heavy cash payments left the genuineness of the claim unproved. For disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), relief under the second proviso depended on proof that the payees had offered the sums to tax and on production of the prescribed accountant's certificate; since those factual conditions required verification, the matter was remanded for compliance and enquiry. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Oct 2021 16:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413390 Additional evidence for travelling claims was not admitted under Rule 46A because the assessee failed to show sufficient cause or produce documentary proof that the foreign travel was wholly for business purposes, so the disallowance was sustained. Salary disallowance was also upheld because the vouchers, signatures and supporting records were defective or unavailable, and the heavy cash payments left the genuineness of the claim unproved. For disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), relief under the second proviso depended on proof that the payees had offered the sums to tax and on production of the prescribed accountant's certificate; since those factual conditions required verification, the matter was remanded for compliance and enquiry. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413390