<?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 (9) TMI 1620 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459553</link>
    <description>The ITAT Indore-AT partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding prescribed limits. While the tribunal found the land purchase transactions genuine and supported by registered deeds, it identified contradictions in the assessee&#039;s explanation for commercial expediency. The assessee claimed sellers demanded cash payments to obtain consent from joint owners/family members, but the registered deeds showed these parties consented without charging money. The tribunal upheld disallowance of Rs. 1,14,55,500 due to this contradiction while confirming CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the remaining disallowance of Rs. 2,63,60,750, resulting in partial success for the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:04:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1620 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459553</link>
      <description>The ITAT Indore-AT partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding prescribed limits. While the tribunal found the land purchase transactions genuine and supported by registered deeds, it identified contradictions in the assessee&#039;s explanation for commercial expediency. The assessee claimed sellers demanded cash payments to obtain consent from joint owners/family members, but the registered deeds showed these parties consented without charging money. The tribunal upheld disallowance of Rs. 1,14,55,500 due to this contradiction while confirming CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the remaining disallowance of Rs. 2,63,60,750, resulting in partial success for the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>