Aggarwal Steel Traders v. CIT (P&H)

250 ITR 738Reported decision#17391 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Aggarwal Steel Traders v. CIT (P&H)

M/S. Pharma Bio Solutions, Chinnavutapalli vs. The, CIT(A), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 114/VIZ/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) M/S Pharma Bio Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer (Formerly Named As Ward-1(2) M/S Padmaja Laboratories Vijayawada Chinnavutapalli [Pan:Aakfp5523D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. B.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri. B.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 40Section 40A(3)

…case of Associated Engg. Enterprise Vs. CIT(Gauhati) 216 ITR 366, similar view was held that not merely genuineness of transaction, but existence of circumstances warranting cash payment must be proved. 6.3 In the case of Aggarwal Steel Traders Vs. CIT (P&H) 250 ITR 738, it was held that assessee must produce confirmatory letter from other party as proof for insisting on cash payment. 6.4 The relevant extract from the Board Circular No.220 dated 31/05/1977is reproduced below for the sake of convenience. [108 ITR (st) 8&9] “It can be said that it would generally satisfy the requirements of rule 6 DD(J), if a le…

Natesan Krishnamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1672/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1672/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Natesan Krishnamurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/60, Mookathal Street, Non Corporate Ward 9(2) Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 007. [Pan Ancpk 2634B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40A(3)Section 5

…ents vs. CIT, 262 ITR 491, that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Goenka Agencies vs. CIT, 263 ITR 145, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the :- 7 -: case of CIT vs. Nikko Auto Ltd, 256 ITR 476 and Aggarwal Steel Traders vs. CIT, 250 ITR 738, that of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Condiments Pvt Ltd, 261 ITR 76, that of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri.Mahabir Industries vs. CIT, 220 ITR 459, that of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, 249 ITR 113, that of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs.…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Green House Promoters Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…a High Court has held in the case reported in 247 ITR page 13 that a payments in cash reflected in books of accounts cannot be disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision reported in 250 ITR 738 have reiterated that liberal view should be taken in the consideration of Rule 6DD(j) where there are compelling or mitigating circumstances. 12. The meaning of the word ‘practicable’ in the ordinary parlance must prevail in the context of Rule 6DD(j) and in the object of the enactment namely, to relax the rigour of Section 40A(3) of the Act in g…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Green House Promoters Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…a High Court has held in the case reported in 247 ITR page 13 that a payments in cash reflected in books of accounts cannot be disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision reported in 250 ITR 738 have reiterated that liberal view should be taken in the consideration of Rule 6DD(j) where there are compelling or mitigating circumstances. 12. The meaning of the word ‘practicable’ in the ordinary parlance must prevail in the context of Rule 6DD(j) and in the object of the enactment namely, to relax the rigour of Section 40A(3) of the Act in g…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Green House Promoters P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…a High Court has held in the case reported in 247 ITR page 13 that a payments in cash reflected in books of accounts cannot be disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision reported in 250 ITR 738 have reiterated that liberal view should be taken in the consideration of Rule 6DD(j) where there are compelling or mitigating circumstances. 12. The meaning of the word ‘practicable’ in the ordinary parlance must prevail in the context of Rule 6DD(j) and in the object of the enactment namely, to relax the rigour of Section 40A(3) of the Act in g…

Aggarwal Steel Traders v. CIT (P&H) (250 ITR 738) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax