SRI MUKTI ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 119/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2019AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ₹4 lac for land purchases was erroneous as the assessee was engaged in land pulling business and sales were treated as business income. It also held that Section 40A(3) disallowance does not apply to businesses assessed under the presumptive scheme of Section 44AD.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in land and building materials business, appealed against disallowances made by the lower authorities. The primary issue involved the disallowance of ₹4 lac for land purchases and a disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of land purchase expenses is justified when the assessee is in the land business and whether Section 40A(3) applies to presumptive taxation under Section 44AD.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(3),Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

O R D E R

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →