<?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 (4) TMI 236 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436210</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reverse the AO&#039;s disallowance of Rs. 4,09,36,296/- as unexplained expenditure on lorry hire charges under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) pointed out that most vehicles were registered as goods carriers on the VAHAN portal, with exceptions due to data issues, and criticized the AO for lack of proper verification. The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure source was accounted for in the books, rendering the disallowance under section 69C incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:43:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 236 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436210</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reverse the AO&#039;s disallowance of Rs. 4,09,36,296/- as unexplained expenditure on lorry hire charges under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) pointed out that most vehicles were registered as goods carriers on the VAHAN portal, with exceptions due to data issues, and criticized the AO for lack of proper verification. The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure source was accounted for in the books, rendering the disallowance under section 69C incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>