PANKAJKUMAR RAMESHRAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) cannot be invoked merely because land was purchased in the course of business, especially when the payment was made at the time of registration. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that emphasize considering business expediency and the object of the legislation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a builder and developer, made a cash payment of Rs. 4,95,000/- for land purchase. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether cash payment for land purchase at the time of registration is disallowable under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Whether business expediency and other relevant factors should be considered for exceptions to Section 40A(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 24/02/2026 passed under section 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 14.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-2, Amravati, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,84,970/- and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thereafter, Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revisionary Authority) had examined the asses
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 →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026