<?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>2021 (12) TMI 1202 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416436</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals for assessment years 2014-15 &amp;amp; 2015-16. It directed the deletion of disallowances for computer and equipment hire charges under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, as the rates paid were found to be reasonable compared to third-party providers. However, the disallowance of consultancy charges paid to a director was upheld due to insufficient evidence justifying the payments, despite a 50% relief granted by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2021 08:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1202 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416436</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals for assessment years 2014-15 &amp;amp; 2015-16. It directed the deletion of disallowances for computer and equipment hire charges under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, as the rates paid were found to be reasonable compared to third-party providers. However, the disallowance of consultancy charges paid to a director was upheld due to insufficient evidence justifying the payments, despite a 50% relief granted by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>