THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

disallowed under the relevant section granting deduction itself, as section 37(1) in the instant case, so that there is no occasion to travel to the non obstante provision of section 40A(3), which seeks to impose an additional condition as to the mode of payment where it 6 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst. CIT v Darshan

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

7. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 40A(2) provides as under: “Section 40A Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person47 referred to in clause

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

7. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 40A(2) provides as under: “Section 40A Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person47 referred to in clause

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of the payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. M/S REHMAT TRADERS, FEROZEPUR CANTT.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

7 ( pg. 11) of his order. That, in fact, defined the Revenue’s case before us. Conceding thereto, being a matter of fact, he would however add that the prescription of the circumstances under first proviso to section 40A(3A) are in addition to that stipulated under rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the ‘Rules’ hereinafter). We could

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance u/s 40A(7) was restricted to Rs. 19,52,569/- as an amount of Rs. 2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made u/s 143(1) was challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT and that the matter has been restored back

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance is made u/s 40A(3), the assessee would be entitled to get enhanced deduction u/s 80IB and thus no addition is made on this account. I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 21 Assessment Year: 2013-14 11.1. The ld. AR relied on appeal order. The relevant paragraphs from page 83 to 86 are reproduce as below: - “Ground of Appeal No 7 relates

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

40A(3) becomes redundant. As regards the disallowance u/s 69C, the said section is not applicable in the case of the assessee as the source of site expenses were never in dispute as the same were incurred by the assessee and duly reflected in the profit and loss account and have been routed through the books of accounts

SH. ANUP KUMAR JAITLY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under subsection (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account

THE NAKODAR PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAKODAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

40A(7). In this case, the Auditor has reported as under- Provision for payment of gratuity not 322425 allowable under section 40(A(7) 10. That being so, the fact that an adjustment relating to disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (2), BATHINDA vs. M/ S ALTIUS SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7 Assessment Year: 2015-16 than through prescribed and approved banking channels in order to check evasion of taxes . The Section 40A(3) only stipulate positive condition of making payment to a person in prescribed and approved modes of banking channel which in the instant case was met as the payee M/s Flora Texculture Private Limited was paid through approved

VARINDERA OVERSEAS (P) LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 40A(3) of the act by the assessee. In our view, such an addition is required to be deleted. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining Ad- hoc disallowance

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

7. The next grievance of the assesse is that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,500/- under section 40A(3) of the Act, against the provisions of law. 71. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has discussed in the impugned order that the assessee has challenged the addition of an amount

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions