IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

INTERNATIONAL SHIPS STORES SUPPLIERES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 13(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2009-10 International Ships Stores Suppliers Vs. Jcit, Range 13(2) 101, Navratan, 69 P.D. Mello Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai Pan No. Aaafi0135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Deepak Traslhawala Assessee By : Mr. Javed Akhtar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2016

40A(3), had held :- “Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section.” , therefore the aforesaid contention of the assessee would thus fail on the said count too. Thus in light of our aforesaid observations, the ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) to the extent sustaining

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(3) of the Act, provided the conditions of section 40(b) of the Act are not applicable, shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. 12. Our aforesaid conclusion is also supported by accounting treatment of remuneration paid to the partner by the firm. As the salaries paid