CIT v. Smt. Shelly Passi

350 ITR 227High Court2013#2788 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Shelly Passi authority for?

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments is not warranted if the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of the payee are established, particularly when the payee ultimately deposits the cash into a bank account, as the primary objective of preventing tax evasion is not defeated.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Shelly Passi · Shelly Passi · Section 40A(3) · cash payments · disallowance · genuineness of payment · payee identity · deposit in bank · object of section 40A(3) · tax evasion · business expenditure

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(3)section 40asection 40section 143prescribedpersoncompanysection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Shelly Passi

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das, Midnapore vs. ACIT, Cir-Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das V/S. Acit, Circle-Haldia, W/H/A17, Durgachak Basudevpur, P.O. Housing Estate, P.O. Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Durgachak, Hldia, Purba Purba Medinipur, Pin – Medinipur, Pin. 721602 721602 [Pan No.Acupd 7343 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

…n for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there was no doubt about genuineness of payment, no disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) – Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]” CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited in the bank by the payee. 5.3 It is pertinent to notice that the primary object of enacting section 40A(3) was two folds, firstly, putting a check on trading transactions with a…

Sri Rampada Panda., Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - 2, Haldia., Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 67/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Vishwanetra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Sri Rampada Panda -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Purba Medinipur Haldia. (Pan : Ahnpp 8129 P) For The Appellant : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 7.10.2015. Order

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there was no doubt about genuineness of payment, no disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) – Held, yes [ Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]” CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited in the bank by the payee. 3.3.5. It is pertinent to notice that the primary object of enacting section 40A(3) was two fold, firstly, putting a check on trading transactions with…