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...
ITAT Pune sent back the issue of alleged bogus purchases for A.Y. 2017-18, directing AO to examine GST closure letters, transportation evidence, and other supporting documents to determine genuineness.
The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the same is out of the cash sales and both cash book and books of account justifies the same. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of ₹5.85 crore addition under Section 40A(3), confirming that payments to meat producers under Rule 6DD(e)(ii) are exempt.
The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
ITAT Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were challenged as cash payments were made on holidays and for labor. Tribunal directs reassessment considering business exigency and genuine transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
The Gujarat High Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to disallow 25% of bogus purchases shown by Vijay Proteins Ltd., but quashed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s revision of a scrutiny assessment, ruling the action invalid because the Assessing Officer’s view on critical items like creditors and PF/ESI payments was already plausible and reasoned. Introducing new issues not covered in the show-cause notice constituted an exercise of jurisdiction beyond the permissible scope of Section 263.
