CIT & Anr. v. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works

323 ITR 351High Court2010#8980 most cited

What is CIT & Anr. v. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works authority for?

Disallowance under section 40A(3) read with section 6DD of the Rules is not justified when the assessee demonstrates circumstances that warrant an exception, as per the conditions laid out in the rules.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works · 323 ITR 351 · Section 40A(3) · Section 6DD · disallowance · payment · cash · circumstances · exception · business expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4A)Section 133ASection 292CSection 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsurvey under section 133abusiness expediencydumb documentssection 132(4a)section 292cblock periodsection 40a(3)on-moneysection 292loose paperssection 40a

Judgments citing CIT & Anr. v. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works

Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

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

ITA 365/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 362 - 365/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Ace Developers, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Wood Heavan Apartment, Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Ground Floor, Near Bondel Church, Mangaluru. Pacchanady Road, Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN – AAMFA 7843 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AC…

Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

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

ITA 364/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 362 - 365/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Ace Developers, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Wood Heavan Apartment, Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Ground Floor, Near Bondel Church, Mangaluru. Pacchanady Road, Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN – AAMFA 7843 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AC…

Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

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

ITA 363/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 362 - 365/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Ace Developers, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Wood Heavan Apartment, Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Ground Floor, Near Bondel Church, Mangaluru. Pacchanady Road, Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN – AAMFA 7843 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AC…

Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

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

ITA 362/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 362 - 365/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Ace Developers, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Wood Heavan Apartment, Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Ground Floor, Near Bondel Church, Mangaluru. Pacchanady Road, Mangaluru – 575 003. PAN – AAMFA 7843 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AC…

M/S. Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 76/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

…ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14 M/s. ACE Developers 13-12-1395/24 & 25 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Kodialbail Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangaluru 575 003 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : AAMFA7843H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Da…

M/S. Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 75/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

…ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14 M/s. ACE Developers 13-12-1395/24 & 25 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Kodialbail Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangaluru 575 003 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : AAMFA7843H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Da…

M/S. Ace Developers, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 74/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

…ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 M/s. ACE Developers, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.74 to 76/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14 M/s. ACE Developers 13-12-1395/24 & 25 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Kodialbail Vs. Central Circle-1 Mangaluru 575 003 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : AAMFA7843H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023 Da…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5475/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…ann.com 386 (Allahabad) 5. CIT-II vs. Hindustan Equipment (P) Ltd (2013) 30 taxmann.com 295 (Madhya Pradesh) 6. CIT(Central) Ludhiana vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 255 (Punjab & Haryana) 7. CIT vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (2010) 323 ITR 351 (Kar.) 8. CIT-II1, Ludhiana vs. Smt. Shelly Passi (2013) 31 taxmann.com 173 (Punjab & Haryana) 9. CIT-I vs. Magnificent Construction (P) Ltd (2013) 40 taxmann.com 306 C.O. Nos. 29 & 30/Del/2016 Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh) 10. R.C. Goel vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 406 (Delhi) 11. CIT vs. Sri Shanmuga Ginning Factory (2013) 37 taxmann…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…ann.com 386 (Allahabad) 5. CIT-II vs. Hindustan Equipment (P) Ltd (2013) 30 taxmann.com 295 (Madhya Pradesh) 6. CIT(Central) Ludhiana vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 255 (Punjab & Haryana) 7. CIT vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (2010) 323 ITR 351 (Kar.) 8. CIT-II1, Ludhiana vs. Smt. Shelly Passi (2013) 31 taxmann.com 173 (Punjab & Haryana) 9. CIT-I vs. Magnificent Construction (P) Ltd (2013) 40 taxmann.com 306 C.O. Nos. 29 & 30/Del/2016 Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh) 10. R.C. Goel vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 406 (Delhi) 11. CIT vs. Sri Shanmuga Ginning Factory (2013) 37 taxmann…

ITO, Dehradun vs. M/S. I.C.Verma Construction, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee

ITA 2562/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Vs M/S I.C. Verma Construction, Ward-1( 3), Dehradun. Ib, Shivalik Puram, Dehradun. Pan: Aacfi6367A

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40A(3)Section 6D

…ble to the facts of the case, learned AO rightly justified in making the additions. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned AR that in view of the 5. binding precedence by way of decisions in CIT vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 351 (Kar) and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of AP vs. Larsen & Toubro, SLP No. 12482 of 2007, learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the additions, as such, it is not open for the revenue to dispute the same. We have carefully gone through the record. Assessment order speaks that 6. when learned AO requir…

Deogiri Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3267/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R
Section 40A(3)

…ich were not subjected to disallowance u/s 40A(3) & 40A(3A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on peculiar fact of the case. The 7 c a s e r e l i e d o n C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n c o m e T a x & O t h e r s V s . Ba l a ji Engineering & Construction Works (2010) 323 ITR 351 (Kar HC) 3 The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend the above Grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The only issue involved in the present appeal is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.3,20,87,500/- made by the AO invoking the provision of section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) of the Act…

Commissioner of Income vs. Shri G Balraj, Pwd

In the result, question No

ITA/103/2011HC Karnataka31 Aug 2016

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…refore such payments do not have a revenue character and the provisions of section 40A(3) cannot apply. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balaji Engineering and Construction Works 323 ITR 351[Kar], where the finding of the Tribunal was upheld. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee ought to have considered all the receipts as his income and claimed the payment made to Sri Bapuji as deduction thereafter and the fact that entire TDS has been deducted from his payment proves t…