This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Existence of business exigency needs to be proved for payments in cash to avoid addition u/s 40A(3)
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Muniraju Kempanna Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2010-11
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Bangalore
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Muniraju Kempanna Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore remanded the matter back to AO for fresh consideration as assessee didn’t proved existence of business exigency in making payment in cash and AO didn’t carried necessary enquiry before making addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- In the present case, it is alleged that the assessee has made payment of various expenditure exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash while purchasing the land. According to the A.O., it is the violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed that expenditure made in excess ...
Author Info
