Income Tax : Summary of Section 40A disallowances, including payments to related parties, cash payments, gratuity provisions, non-statutory fun...
Income Tax : Summary of income-tax rules on cash limits, including disallowance of cash expenditure, restrictions on loans, deposits, receipts,...
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 : ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) after finding that payments were made to multiple labourers and no...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made where loans are advanced from interest-free funds. It ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Si...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that year-end expense provisions can attract TDS under the IT Act. The matter was restored for limited verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore ...
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.
The case examined whether reassessment after four years was valid when the issues were already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as a mere change of opinion and quashed the reassessment.
The ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The issue was whether cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are recorded in books, audited, and reflected in VAT returns, section 68 cannot be invoked on mere probability.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹4.41 crore addition where the assessment relied only on a survey statement later retracted. It ruled that, without independent evidence, such admissions and loose papers cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether cash salary and commission payments attracted disallowance under section 40A(3). The ITAT held that since each payment was below the per-day statutory limit, the disallowance of ₹2.75 crore was unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
The Tribunal held that ritualistic approval under section 153D, without application of mind, vitiates search assessments. Mandatory supervisory approval must reflect genuine examination of draft orders.
The ITAT held that loans and advances accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments cannot be doubted later without fresh incriminating material. Mere balance-sheet analysis or suspicion is insufficient.
