M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the Act. Ground no. 4 is against the disallowance of Puja expenses, ground no. 5 is against the disallowance of telephone charges and general expenses and ground no. 6 is on the addition of interest earned on TDS. 5. Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the Act. Ground no. 4 is against the disallowance of Puja expenses, ground no. 5 is against the disallowance of telephone charges and general expenses and ground no. 6 is on the addition of interest earned on TDS. 5. Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

SHRI DALJIT SINGH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.769/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

7. Having heard both the parties, perusing the material available on record and the case laws relied on by both the parties, we find that the AO made the disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as the assessee has made payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques to suppliers of raw hide in violation of the provisions of section

SPEED & MOVERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BEHALA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) only to the extent of such payment/payments was sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals), I find no infirmity in the same calling for any interference. Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7

HARIDAS SOM,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 14/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som V/S. I.T.O. Ward 22(3), Kolkata Pan: Ajhps8867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs. 49,43,544/-. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court

RANJAN DEBNATH ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 40A(3) disallowance of ₹49,43,544/-. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 7. With the above discussion

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 194C of the Act warranting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld AO is directed to delete this disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 68,49,395/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. The ld AR during the course of hearing stated that

DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RELIANCE JUTE MILLS INTERNATIONAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowed the said amount of Rs.2,54,03,464/- as per provisions of section 36(1)(iv), 43B & 40A(7

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

disallowance of any expenditure invoking the provisions of section 40A(3). He placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, in the case of G.A. Roadlines Vs. ITO, 44 SOT 145 (Hyd) and ITO Vs. Shri Ashish V. Patel, ITA No.676/ahd/2013 order dated 28.6.2013. 7

MR. NIRMAL KUMAR DAS,MIDNAPORE vs. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das V/S. Acit, Circle-Haldia, W/H/A17, Durgachak Basudevpur, P.O. Housing Estate, P.O. Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Durgachak, Hldia, Purba Purba Medinipur, Pin – Medinipur, Pin. 721602 721602 [Pan No.Acupd 7343 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 40A(3) only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by ITA No.391/Kol/2014 A.Y.2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kr. Das v. ACIT Cir-Haldia Page 7

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MINAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE DAS, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Versus- Shri Jugal Kishore Das Midnapore Paschim Medinipur (Pan: Adxpd 2305 B) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl. Cit(Sr.Dr) For The Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2017. Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Relating To A.Y. 2010-11 On The Following Grounds : “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Aggregating To Rs 86,55,000/-, Made U/S 40A(3) On Account Of Cash Payments Of Rs 45,80,000/- To M/S United Spirits & Rs 40,75,000/- To M/S Vtr Marketing, ; 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring Assessee'S Own Statement Recorded On Oath U/S 131 On 15/03/2013, That Payments Exceeding Rs 20,000/- Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd ; 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -Xxxvi, Kolkata Was Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs 86,55,000/- U/S 40A(3), Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Substantiate His Claim That Payments Were Made In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Read With Rule-6Dd Due To Commercial Expediency ;”

7 Anupam Teleservices vs ITO reported in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) “"Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 600 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962-Business disallowance

ITO, WD-2(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. M/S KAJORA PACHAI & C. S. SHOP, BURDWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-2(3), Durgapur -Vs- M/S Kajora Pachai & C.S. Shop [Pan: Aagfk 2341 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits Rule 6DD(j) Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was working as an agent of Tata Tele Services Limited for distributing mobile cards and recharge vouchers - Principal company Tata insisted that cheque payment 7

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

7 (d) The act as introduced in 1968 read with rules 6DD requires to exempt the provision of section 40A(3) if cash payment is due to genuine difficulty and the evidence thereof is produced at the time of assessment. This rule 6DDj was incorporated in act itself by Finance Act 2007 by using the word “considerations of business expendiency

SMT SHILA MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – Business disallowance – Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit (Rule 6DD) – Assessee made certain payment of purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding ITA No.336/Kol/2014 A.Y.2010-11 Smt. Shila Mondal vs. CIT (A), Asl Page 7