Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Excel Engineers , Kolkata vs J.C.I.T (Osd) Cir - 51,Kolkata., ... on 25 November, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Crescent Export Syndicate on 30 July, 2008

CIT vs Crescent Export Syndicate in ITA No. 202 of 2008 dated 30.7.2008 - Calcutta High Court "It also appears that the purchases have been held to be genuine by the learned CIT(Appeal) but the learned CIT(Appeal) has invoked Section 40A(3) for payment exceeding 20,000/- since it is not made by crossed cheque or bank draft but by hearer cheques and has computed the payments falling under provisions to Section 40A(3) for 78,45,580/- and disallowed @20% thereon 15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that without the payment being made by bearer 12 ITA No.1588/Kol/2013 Excel Engineers, AY 2009-10 cheque these goods could not have been procured and it would have hampered the supply of goods within the stipulated time. Therefore, the genuineness of the purchase has been accepted by the Id. CIT(Appeal) which has also not been disputed by the department as it appears from the order so passed by the learned Tribunal. It further appears from the assessment order that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeal) has disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction. There was no dispute that the purchases were genuine."
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 234 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Cpl Tannery on 4 August, 2008

CIT vs CPL Tannery reported in (2009) 318 ITR 179 (Cal) The second contention of the assessee that owing to business expediency, obligation and exigency, the assessee had to make cash payment for purchase of goods so essential for carrying on of his business, was also not disputed by the AO. The genuinity of transactions, rate of gross profit or the fact that the bonafide of the assessee that payments are made to producers of hides and skin are also neither doubted nor disputed by the AO. On the basis of these facts it is not justified on the part of the AO to disallow 20% of the payments made u/s 40A(3) in the process of assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 17,90,571/- and ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 49 - P C Ghosh - Full Document
1