“Section 2(33)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(33)17 judgments

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CHANDMIYA MIYAJAN QURESHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5172/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Virqabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

proviso to Section 40A(3) of the Act seeks to exclude certain categories/classes of payments from its net in circumstances as prescribed. Section 2(33) of the Act defines "prescribed" means prescribed by the rules. It does not include CBDT Circulars. It is a settled position in law that

GYASUDDIN QURESHI,BULANDSHAHR UP vs. ITO WARD 3(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: AO during the case proceedings but AO not considered it is to relevant to mention here that all the cash purchase is fully covered under rule 6DD(e)(ii) of the income tax rule assessee had purchases in cash of rupees 74,67,186/ out of total purchase 2,69,92,101/ due to this some purchase have to be done in cash, then many vendors do not have the bank account and purchase is done away from a remote area. Also the assessee rely on the order of the Hon,ble Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appell

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

proviso to Section 40A(3) of the Act seeks to exclude certain categories/classes of payments from its net in circumstances as prescribed. Section 2(33) of the Act defines "prescribed" means prescribed by the Rules. It does not include CBDT Circulars. It is a settled position in law that

KRISHNAMURTHY THAGARAJAN,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1651/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1651/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Krishnamurthy Thiagarajan, No.41, 36Th Main Dollar Scheme, Btm Layout, 1St Stage, Bangalore – 560 068. Pan: Aadpk-5126-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Circle 6(3),Mumbai, Room No.522 (5Th Floor), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, Ca With Shri V.Shivkumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08/11/2012, For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In Appeal Assessee Has Assailed Additions/Disallowances On Account Of: (I) Management Fee Paid To M/S. Bnp Paribas Investment Services India Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.1,71,028/-

For Appellant: Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, CA with Shri V.Shivkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, SR.DR

Section 14ASection 48

accordance with such method as may be prescribed. The method, having regard to the meaning of the expression 'prescribed' in section 2(33), must be prescribed by Rules made under the Act. What merits emphasis is that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to determine the expenditure incurred in relation