M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

9. Now I will deal with the issue of disallowance of Rs.16,33,037/- under Section 40A(3). The AO observed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

SH. SHER SINGH RANA,SOLAN vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआदेश/Order

40A(3) of the l.T.Act, 1961. And to avoid any disallowance, he has submitted fictitious documents (Ikrarnama) before the Assessing Officer claiming that the property of the father has been sold. As the AO has failed to consider this the order issued by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 40A(3) are not applicable in the case of appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 67,500 being 1/3rd of car expenses of Rs. 202,500 incurred, actually paid and claimed by the appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance for AY 2016–17, we direct the AO to consider the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs.82,78,750/- in AY 2017–18, if otherwise found in order, in accordance with the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 5 9. In the result, Ground No. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

40A(9) has been amended to provide that a contribution made for the purposes and to the ex- tent provided under section 36(1)(iva) would not be disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

40A(9) has been amended to provide that a contribution made for the purposes and to the ex- tent provided under section 36(1)(iva) would not be disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA vs. JASVIR SINGH, VILLAGE DIWANA TEHSIL PEHOWA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 665/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Jasvir Singh, Kurukshetra बनाम Village Diwana Tehsil Pehowa, Vs. Distt. Kurukshetra 136128 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cnqps4895G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

Disallowance of the entire cash purchase results in abnormal trading profit for the assessee which it could never earn. There had never been any tax evasion with these transactions. The primary objective of enacting Section 40A(3) was to put a check on trading transactions with a mind to evade the liability to tax on income earned out of such

SH. GURMAL SINGH H NO R-18 NEW GRAIN MARKET NEAR JAIN HOSPITAL, JALANDHAR BYEPASS ROAD, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

9. That notice under Section 143(2) is dated 24.08.2022. Notice(s) under Section 142(1) are dated 04.08.2022, 22.08.2022, 12.10.2022 and 31.10.2022. ITA 209/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 5 10. That in response to notice(s), the assessee has filed necessary information/replies/documents which were examined and placed on record. 11. That in the assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1048213999(1) dated

SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal, As Pointed Out By The Registry. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Of The Assessee. On Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Is Condoned.

disallowance of Rs. 11,70,750/- invoking provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 8. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has failed to file any written or oral submissions during the appellate proceedings on the instant issue wherein the AO has disputed the genuineness of the cash transaction

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowable in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act which means that certain expenditure has been incurred, accounted for in books of accounts and has been found to be incurred in cash in violation of section 40A(3), the question of unexplained expenditure or unaccounted expenditure doesn’t arise for consideration. Hence, the action of the AO in invoking

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made