<?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>2024 (2) TMI 931 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449780</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petitioner&#039;s challenge to assessment u/s 144B involving disallowance of commission payments to foreign companies and local agents, plus expenses for bullion purchases. The petitioner, incorporated in 2019, made substantial bullion/jewelry purchases from three dealers, including from a company under liquidation through NCLT auction. The AO rejected the petitioner&#039;s explanations due to lack of clarity in documentation, failure to provide GST returns in Form GST 2A, and inadequate explanation of commission payments. The HC found disputed questions of fact unsuitable for summary proceedings under Article 226, upholding the assessment order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 931 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449780</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petitioner&#039;s challenge to assessment u/s 144B involving disallowance of commission payments to foreign companies and local agents, plus expenses for bullion purchases. The petitioner, incorporated in 2019, made substantial bullion/jewelry purchases from three dealers, including from a company under liquidation through NCLT auction. The AO rejected the petitioner&#039;s explanations due to lack of clarity in documentation, failure to provide GST returns in Form GST 2A, and inadequate explanation of commission payments. The HC found disputed questions of fact unsuitable for summary proceedings under Article 226, upholding the assessment order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>