CIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal

249 ITR 113High Court2001#10408 most cited

What is CIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal authority for?

Disallowance under section 40A(3) may be deleted if the assessee's case falls under the second proviso to section 40A(3), considering business expediency and genuine transactions.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal · 249 ITR 113 · Section 40A(3) · Rule 6DD · business expediency · genuine transactions · cash payment · disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 6DD

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal

Yash Infratech, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

ITA 513/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Yash Infratech V. The Acit A-78, Indira Nagar Range 1 Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabfy1381R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…(ITAT, Jaipur). 4. ITO vs. Standard Leather (P.) Ltd reported in [2016] 76 taxmann.com 109 (ITAT, Kolkata) ITA No.513/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 11 5. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO reported in [1991] 191 ITR 667 (SC). 6. CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal reported in 249 ITR 113 (Alld.). 3.1 The Ld. A.R. also drew my attention to Circular No.220 dated 31.05.1977 issued by the C.B.D.T. regarding exceptions provided to section 40A(3) of the Act. 3.2 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in the light of the above cited judicial precedents, Circular and the facts of the case, the impugned addition be deleted. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 41/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/RPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax( Central)-2, Raipur vs. Mesers Shree Jagdamba Construction Company, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

…Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that payments had been made to keep harmonious relationship with supplier under unavoidable circumstances, cash payment made by assessee clearly satisfied requirement under provisions of rule 6DD(j)(1). In a similar case of 249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that consideration of busines…

New Kalpana Ent Udyog, Auraiya vs. I.T, O, Auraiya

In the result. Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…of the Ld. CIT(A) was self contradictory. In support, he further submitted the following case laws in his favour: - CIT vs. Raja Pal Automobiles (2010) 320 ITR 185 (All) I.T.A No. 49/Agra/2015 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 - CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal (2001) 249 ITR 113 (All) - CIT vs. Chaudhary & Co., (1996) 217 ITR 0431 - Dy. CIT vs. K.C.P. Shivaraman (2017) 49 CCH 193 (Chenai Trib.) 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, has in the hearing before us stated that the action of Ld. A.O. in disallowing Rs.27,07,320/- u/s 40A(3) was correct and he further submitted a few judgements namely Associated Engineers vs CIT 21…

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

…on’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. Rajendra Rice Mill, 232 ITR 217 and CIT vs. Mahavir Stores, 232 ITR 300 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO, 191 ITR 667. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not 6. impressed by any of the above arguments made by the assessee. L…

Madhav Govind Dhulshete, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2148/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2146/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Bharat RaichandaniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 40A(3)

…pointed out in the order of the Id. CIT(A) by the Revenue. Moreover, the Id. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, 249 ITR 113. Since the Id. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in detail in the light of various judicial pronouncements, we find no infirmity in it and we accordingly confirm the same.” 15. From the above, it is evident that the assessee has undertaken the business activities at distant places where banking facilities are not available and proved the business…

CIT v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal (249 ITR 113) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax