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 ...
Whether expenditure paid in cash, which is not disallowed u/s 37 (1), can be disallowed under section 40A(3). Whether provision of section 54F are applicable where nature of property turned into commercial purpose.
The assessee company is engaged in real estate business. It paid cash advance for purchasing a plot and reflected it in balance sheet under loans and advances given. The AO made addition of 20 % of amount paid as advance, invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Peak credit theory will be applicable only when there are deposits in cash and withdrawals in cash. In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) is covered by the exception Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules and as such no dis allowance under section 40A(3) of the Act can be made. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
ITAT held in Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT that if the assesse had claimed deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of purchase then it did not mean that assesse could not claim deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of sale.
n the present case, neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in any case doubted. These were the conclusions on facts drawn by the Appellate Commissioner. The Tribunal also did not disturb such facts but relied solely on Rule 6DD (j) of the Rules to hold
If banking facilities are not available at the place where land is purchased no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Unsubstantiated material found in pen drive cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make additions
Payments were made to truck drivers, who insisted for payment in cash was not exceptional case, because the assessee has not made payments to individual truck owners but to various brokers through whom the trucks were engaged, and therefore, the case of the assessee was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD.
As regards the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more, the assessee has not substantiated his claim that the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.20,000/- or less before the AO. It is also not on record whether such claim was actually made before the AO or not. With regard to the claim before the ld. CIT(A), all the vouchers are self made vouchers and without any authenticity of the name and complete address of the recipient. From the claim of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the payments are claimed to have been made on different hours on the same day and accordingly on different dates.
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs. 60,19,000/- made by the Assessing officer was wrongly deleted by the Tribunal. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (Punj. & Har.), it was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously accepted the plea of the assessee whereas in view of the express provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, any amount paid in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- was inadmissible.
