Madhav Govinda Dulshet v. ITO (428 ITR 224)

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)

…made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), in case of Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. Vs. ITO (428 ITR 224) (Mad) and in case of Bagmari Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (25 ITR 640) (Calcutta), wherein confirmed the disallowance where the payment made in cash exceeding the stipulated amount not withstanding the genuineness of transactions. In case of Balaji Engineering & Construction Works cited (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that payment mad…

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)

…made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), in case of Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. Vs. ITO (428 ITR 224) (Mad) and in case of Bagmari Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (25 ITR 640) (Calcutta), wherein confirmed the disallowance where the payment made in cash exceeding the stipulated amount not withstanding the genuineness of transactions. In case of Balaji Engineering & Construction Works cited (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that payment mad…

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)

…made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), in case of Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. Vs. ITO (428 ITR 224) (Mad) and in case of Bagmari Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (25 ITR 640) (Calcutta), wherein confirmed the disallowance where the payment made in cash exceeding the stipulated amount not withstanding the genuineness of transactions. In case of Balaji Engineering & Construction Works cited (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that payment mad…

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)

…made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), in case of Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. Vs. ITO (428 ITR 224) (Mad) and in case of Bagmari Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (25 ITR 640) (Calcutta), wherein confirmed the disallowance where the payment made in cash exceeding the stipulated amount not withstanding the genuineness of transactions. In case of Balaji Engineering & Construction Works cited (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that payment mad…

M/S. SIVASAKTHI TYRES,TUTICORIN vs. ITO,WARD-4, TUTICORIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 586/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sivasakthi Tyres, The Income Tax Officer, 184/9B, Vvd Road, Vs. Ward -4, Tuticorin – 628 008. Tuticorin. Pan: Abkfs 7778L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V.J. Arul Raj & Shri P. Sivagaminathan, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050727795(1) Dated 14.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tuticorin For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Payments Made By Way Of Cash For Purchase In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- & Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised 17 Grounds, Which Are Argumentation, Factual & Citation Of Various Case Laws & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri V.J. Arul Raj &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ovisions of section 40A(3) of the Act does not apply to genuine transactions . It was pointed out to ld.counsel by ld. Senior DR that the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vaduganathan Talkies and Another vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 428 ITR 224 has categorically held that the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act will apply to genuine transactions also, in case the payments are in excess of Rs.20,000/- on a single day. 5.1 As regards to assessee’s another plea that as per the chart depicted in the order of CIT(A), there are three dates falls on Sundays for which payments made read as…

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (5), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 10/IND/2023[22014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ng of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the genuineness of the transaction is not relevant for disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vaduganathan Talkies v. ITO 428 ITR 224 (Mad) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Nam Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 428 ITR 186 . He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO 191 ITR 667.He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material…