121 ITR 232 (Punj. & Har.), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. v. CIT

155 ITR 519High Court1985#8230 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194-IASection 194LASection 28Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(3)section 40asection 28section 40prescribedpersonbusinessdocumentindia

Judgments citing 121 ITR 232 (Punj. & Har.), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. v. CIT

SHANKARLAL PRAYAGCHAND PUROHIT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 714/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 40A(3)

…are covered under Rule 6DD. For this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon following judicial precedents : Shankarlal Prayagchand Puruhit Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 3– (a) CIT vs. Keerthi Agro Mills (P) Ltd. (Kerala HC) (b) Kantilal Purshottam & Co. vs. CIT (155 ITR 519) (Raj.) (c) Sri Krishnasa Bhute vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) 7. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee holds a valid licence from the Krushi Upaj Mandi Samittee and is engaged in commission agency business,…

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…are Store v. CIT, [1976] 104 ITR 664 Allahabad; Ratan Udyog v. ITO, [1977] 109 ITR 1 Allahabad; P.R. Textiles v. CIT, Kerala, [19801 121 ITR 237 Kerala; CIT, v. Kishan Chand Maheswari Dass, [1980] 121 ITR 232 P & H; Kanti Lal Purshottam and Co. v. CIT, [1985] 155 ITR 519 Raj; CIT, v. New Light Tin Mfg. Co., [1980] 121 ITR 229 P & H; Fakri Automobiles v. CIT, [1986] 160 ITR 504 Raj; Venkata Satayanarayana Timber Depot v. ITR, [1987] 165 ITR 253 AP.; and Akash Films v. CIT, [1991] ITR 32 Karnataka. The decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan…

MUDIT KUMAR BAJAJ,UJJAIN vs. ITO-1(2), UJJAIN

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

ITA 550/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40A(3)

….), U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 664 (All.), Raton Udyog v. 1TO [1977] 109 ITR 1 (AIl), PH. Textiles v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Kishan Chand Maheshwari Dass [1980] 121 ITR 232 (Punj. & Har.), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 519 (Raj.), CIT v. New Light Tin Mfg. Co. [1980] 121 ITR 229 (Punj. & Har.), Fakri Automobiles v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 504 (Raj.), Venkata Satyanarayana Timber Depot v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 253 (AP), and Akash Films v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 32 (Kar.). The decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana,…

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…when there is a technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. It has been held in the case of Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. 155 ITR 519 (Raj.) that when a new provision u/s 40A(3) prohibiting cash payment exceeding Rs.2500 was inserted for the first time w.e.f. AY 1969-70, it was held that the assessee was ignorant of such a prohibition being the very first year and hence disallowance made, were deleted.” 9. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the imposition of pen…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD vs. VALUE PHARMA RETAIL(HYD) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2056/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Dipak, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2056/HYD/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, M/s.Value Pharma Retail Ward-17(3), Vs (Hyd) Private Limited, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AADCV5415G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri R.Dipak, DR For Assessee : NONE Date of Hearing : 19-04-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 26-08-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2015-16 arises from the CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad’s order dated 1…

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

…rovisions of section 40A (3) have not been defeated and, therefore provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be invoked in the case of assessee. The reliance is placed on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in case of Kantilal Purshottam & Co. Vs. CIT (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj.). In CIT Vs. Chaudhary & Co. (1996) 217 ITR 431, 433 (All), it was held that where the seller has insisted on cash payment and the payment was genuine disclosing the identity of seller, the provisions of section 40A (3) cannot be invoked. The similar views have been held by various High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal including t…

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 40A(3)

…placed on following decisions: a. CIT V/s Chaudhary & Co. (1996) 217 ITR (All.) 431. b. CIT V/s Union Agencies (1987) 166 ITR 529 (Delhi). 5 ITA 120/Jodh/2019 Shri Gautam Sharma vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur c. Kantilai Purshottam & Co. V/s CIT (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj.). d. The Jariambhumi V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 517 (Gau.). e. CIT V/s Brugmohan Singh & Co. (1994) 209 ITR 753 (P&H). f. CIT V/s A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar & Sons (2007) 207 CTR (Mad.) 428. g. Smt. Harshila Chordia V/s ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) h. Mahender Singh & Part V/s DCIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Del.) 590. i. Jitu Builders P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (…

M/S. S.D. MINERALS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 554/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.554/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. S.D. Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of 3009, World Trade Centre, Income-Tax Circle –4 Ring Road Surat 395002 (Osd)Surat Pan: Aakcs 3533 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

….), U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 664 (All.), Raton Udyog v. 1TO [1977] 109 ITR 1 (AIl), PH. Textiles v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Kishan Chand Maheshwari Dass [1980] 121 ITR 232 (Punj. & Har.), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 519 (Raj.), CIT v. New Light Tin Mfg. Co. [1980] 121 ITR 229 (Punj. & Har.), Fakri Automobiles v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 504 (Raj.), Venkata Satyanarayana Timber Depot v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 253 (AP), and Akash Films v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 32 (Kar.). The decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana,…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…: (4) P.R. Textiles vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 237 (Ker) : (5) CIT vs. Kishan Chand Maheswari Dass (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 90 : (1980) 121 ITR 232 (P&H) : (6) Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. vs. CIT (1986) 53 (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa CTR (Raj) 19 : (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj) : (7) CIT vs. New Light Tin Manufacturing. Co. (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 143 : (1980) 121 ITR 229 (P&H); (8) Fakri Automobiles vs. CIT (1986) 52 CTR (Raj) 59 : (1986) 160 ITR 504 (Raj); (9) Venkata Satyanarayana Timber Depot vs. CIT (1987) 60 CTR (AP) 157 : (1987) 165 ITR 253 (AP); (10) Akash Films vs. CIT (1991) 95 CTR (Kar) 56 : (1991) 190 ITR…

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 40A(3)

…was placed on the various decisions including the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT v. Mahendra & Co. Ltd, (1987) 163 ITR 316 (Raj), Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 404 (Raj), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. vs. CIT (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj.) and CIT vs. Banswara Fabrics Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 398 (Raj.). 4. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but were not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that in all these cases which have been relied upon by the assessee, the emphasis was given on the fact that the seller has pressed t…

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 40A(3)

…1 (Guj. High Court) Rigours of section 40A(3) are lifted when the identity of the payee is not in doubt and payment is genuine. (iii) Smt. Harshila Chordia Vs. ITO (2007) 208 CTR 208(Raj.) (iv) Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nikko Auto Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 476 (P&H) (vi) Janambhumi v. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (Gau) 518: (1997) 225 ITR 517 (Gau): TC S18.2032 In view of the aforesaid facts the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) deserves to be deleted. 3. Favourable circular of the Board:- It is submitted that under c…

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…1, 1977, is illustrative and not exhaustive and the Assessing officer is to take into account - the surrounding circumstances, considerations of business expediency and the fects of each particular case. In a case reported in Kantilal Purushottam & eo, Js CIT 155 ITR 519, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court took the view that where the genuineness of payments has been established and the default was only technical, the assessee would be entitled for the benefit of exemption u/r.6DD. 4.8 From a perusal ~f the decisions of different High Courts referred to above, it clearly emerges that' the purpose of Sec.40A…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…proper weightage to availability of banking facilities, business expediency and other relevant factors. The reliance is placed on the following decisions:- i) Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax 155 ITR 519 (RAJ) held that Income-tax is a tax on the real income. Proviso to s. 40A(3) shows that the Legislature intended not to make the provision of s. 40A(3) very strict and absolutely mandatory. The rigor of the whole restriction was loosened by the proviso and by making r. 6DD ii) The appellant further seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the…

121 ITR 232 (Punj. & Har.), Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. v. CIT (155 ITR 519) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax