SHRI. C. ASHOK KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 112/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 August 2016AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified as the payments were made to a subsidiary bank of SBI. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee made payments of Rs. 5,12,900/- for licence fees to the Government of Karnataka. These payments were made to the State Bank of Mysore, which is a subsidiary of the State Bank of India.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40A(3) is warranted when payments are made to a subsidiary bank of SBI, as per Rule 6DD(a)(ii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri R. E. Balasubramanyam, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, JCIT

per this rule, disallowance cannot be made u/s 40A (3). I, therefore, delete this disallowance.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →