RAJ WINES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6487/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2016AY 2010-115 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 cash payments were necessitated by business exigencies and were genuine, supported by vendor confirmations and the fact that payments were made on weekends. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retail wine dealer, made cash payments for purchases from wholesale vendors due to business exigencies, including weekend payments when banks were closed. The Assessing Officer disallowed these payments under Section 40A(3), which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether cash payments made due to business exigencies and on weekends, despite Section 40A(3) disallowance, are justifiable. Whether the circumstances fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD.

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(6)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, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA

Hearing: 04/07/2016

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 →