Income Tax : Section 40A of the Income-tax Act restricts the deduction of specified business expenses where statutory conditions are not fulfil...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act contains strict provisions under Sections 40A(3), 269SS, 269ST, 269SU, and 269T to regulate cash transactions, ...
Income Tax : Learn if cash payments over ₹10,000 for electricity bills are allowed under Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act. Understand exempti...
Income Tax : Section 40A(3) restricts cash payments exceeding ₹10,000 in business transactions. Exceptions apply for specific cases like tran...
Income Tax : Explore the rules and regulations governing cash transactions in real estate deals to ensure tax compliance. Learn about permissib...
Income Tax : It is suggested that there should be a positive provision under the I.T. Act that any transaction involving more than Rs.3,00,000/...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that incomplete data retrieved from an inoperative computer could not prevail over audited books of accoun...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding no evidence that cash rent payments exceeded ₹10,000 on any single day. The ...
Income Tax : Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that cash payments made through agents for procuring paddy from farmers were covered by Rule 6DD exceptions....
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a Section 40A(3) disallowance cannot be made on the assumption that cash payments might have exceeded...
The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Since the amount was capital in nature, the addition was deleted. The ruling clarifies the scope of disallowance provisions.
ITAT Bangalore held that year-end expense provisions can attract TDS under the IT Act. The matter was restored for limited verification to determine liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from disclosed bank accounts and duly recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained money merely due to doubts on utilisation, in the absence of adverse evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
The issue was whether reassessment could be reopened on matters already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held that without fresh tangible material, reopening amounts to change of opinion and is invalid.
The Tribunal examined the validity of reopening and multiple expense disallowances. While relief was granted on cash payments and reimbursed interest, statutory interest on taxes was held to be non-deductible.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 40A(3) cannot be made on assumptions of split payments. In the absence of evidence showing lump-sum cash payments exceeding the statutory limit, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that adjustments made under section 143(1) solely on Form 3CD disclosures are not conclusive. Matters involving contingent liabilities and factual disputes must be verified by the Assessing Officer.
