<?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>2022 (5) TMI 829 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422569</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld disallowances under section 40A(3) for payments made through bearer cheques by a Builder and Developer to family members and contractors. The payments did not meet Rule 6DD exemptions, leading to disallowances totaling Rs. 44,70,556. Despite claims of commercial expediency and agency relationships, the Tribunal followed High Court precedent, sustaining disallowances for cash payments exceeding limits and confirming the disallowances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2022 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 829 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422569</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld disallowances under section 40A(3) for payments made through bearer cheques by a Builder and Developer to family members and contractors. The payments did not meet Rule 6DD exemptions, leading to disallowances totaling Rs. 44,70,556. Despite claims of commercial expediency and agency relationships, the Tribunal followed High Court precedent, sustaining disallowances for cash payments exceeding limits and confirming the disallowances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>