Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Hasanand Pinjomal vs Commissioner Of Incocme-Tax, Gujarat on 4 July, 1977
In Hasanand Pinjomal v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 134 (Guj) it was held that Section 40A(3) was intended to serve the objective of checking tax evasion and ensure that payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 are made by crossed cheque or bank draft so that it will be easier to ascertain whether the payment was genuine and whether it was made out of income from disclosed sources.
Kanti Lal Purshottam & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 January, 1985
In Kanti Lal Purushottam and Co. v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 619 (Raj), the court held that the rigour of the restriction has also been lessened by the making of rule 6DD which gives a discretionary power to the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 which could not be made by a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft. Where the assessee had made payments in cash of value exceeding Rs. 2,500 for agricultural produce under the honest belief that the payments were covered by rule 6DD and the genuineness of the payments and the identity of the payees were not doubted, the deduction could not be disallowed simply on the ground that the payment was made in cash.
Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 May, 1987
13. Our attention has also been drawn to another decision of the Rajas-than High Court in the case of Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 404. There, the court took into consideration the fact that this was the first dealing of the assessee and the firm could not have accepted the cheque of the assessee and the assessee could create confidence by making cash payment only. The genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee were fully established. Therefore, the payment had to be allowed.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1