THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Rule 6DD(b) requires direct payment to the government, and payment through an intermediary agent does not qualify for the exception. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a bus company, made cash payments to an agent for depositing government taxes, PF, and ESI. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses under Section 40A(3) as they were not directly paid to the government. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether cash payments made to an agent for depositing government dues are covered under Rule 6DD(b) to avoid disallowance under Section 40A(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (2010) 323 ITR 351 (Kar.) 8. CIT-II1, Ludhiana v. Smt. Shelly Passi5 citing31 Taxmann.com 173 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order
of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.03.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
2 The Azad Nakodar Bus S. P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT “1. The appellate order is perverse, unlawful, arbitrary, without appreciation of the facts of the case and the Law.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred to confirm addition of Rs.4374133/- made by A.O., ignoring the submissions of the assessee that the cash payments made to Government are covered under rule 6DD(b) under section 40A(3) of the Act. The addition of Rs.4374
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026