<?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>2023 (1) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432345</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning cash payments exceeding the limit. The Tribunal found that the payments were justified for business exigencies and fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made based on the violation of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD, as the payments were genuine and fell under the exclusion provided in Rule 6DD(f). The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal against the confirmation of additions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and directed a speaking order before levying interest under Sections 234B &amp;amp; 234C.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2023 09:46:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432345</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning cash payments exceeding the limit. The Tribunal found that the payments were justified for business exigencies and fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made based on the violation of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD, as the payments were genuine and fell under the exclusion provided in Rule 6DD(f). The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal against the confirmation of additions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and directed a speaking order before levying interest under Sections 234B &amp;amp; 234C.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>