Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. v. ITO (

25 ITR 640Reported decision#13845 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

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 Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. v. ITO (

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the subcontractor pu…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the subcontractor pu…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the subcontractor pu…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the subcontractor pu…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the sub- contractor…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the sub- contractor…

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)

…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 made by the assessee being Principal Contractor to the sub- contractor…

Vaduganathan Talkies & Ors. v. ITO ( (25 ITR 640) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax