Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... vs Sh. Darshan Kumar Mahajan, Pathankot on 18 April, 2018 cites

Cit vs Raj Kumar Mahajan on 4 January, 2012

7. Ground 2 by the Revenue is in respect of a disallowance at Rs.94,000/-, being 1/7th of the total expenditure (of Rs.6.56 lacs) under several heads of expenditure, viz. entertainment; langer; festival expenses; labour welfare; etc., incurred in cash and supported by self-made vouchers, so that the expenditure was not fully verifiable. Relief stands allowed by the first appellate authority on the ground that no specific defect stands pointed out by the AO. The Revenue's grievance is that it has not been appreciated that the expenditure stands incurred in cash per self-made vouchers, so that it is not fully verifiable. Like contentions were 16 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst. CIT v Darshan Kumar Mahajan raised before us. We find some merit in the case of either party. An expenditure does not become un-genuine merely because it stands incurred in cash. At the same time, cash expenditure per self-made vouchers is not amenable to verification.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - S Khanna - Full Document

Gurdass Garg,, Bathinda vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 January, 2014

The decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Gurdas Garg (supra) was rendered on the basis of the earlier rule 6DD(j) which, as was discovered subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment in the open court by the Hon'ble Court, no longer existent. It thus correctly observed therein that section 40A(3) is not absolute in its terms and, therefore, excludes expenditure, genuineness of which is not in doubt and the payee/s is identifiable, i.e., where made under a business exigency.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 6 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Ipca Laboratory Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 March, 2004

'(j); where the payment was required to be made on a day on which the banks were closed either on account of holiday or strike;' Section 40A(3) is no doubt open to challenge in view of the provision getting more restrictive. Whether it constitutes more than a reasonable restraint on trade - permissible under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, is for a constitutional Court 9 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst. CIT v Darshan Kumar Mahajan to examine and declare in appropriate proceedings before it. Given the constitutionality of the provision, the same has to be read on its terms, even as the explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521(SC) in the context of a beneficial provision, i.e., s. 80HHC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 314 - S N Variava - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana on 12 March, 2014

That hardship and inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature if such meaning is clear and apparent. A departure from the literal rule should therefore only be in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial restraint to do so. The reason is simple. If not in the clear words employed by the Legislature, where is its intent to be found? This in fact represents trite law, as also explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again, to several by which reference stands made by it in Calcutta Knitwears (supra). How could, then, we wonder, the provision be read as not attracted where the payment of the expenditure does not fall within any one of the excepting clauses of rule 6DD, 10 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 236 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs M/S Baby Marine Exports, Kollam on 30 March, 2007

We have already delineated the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of any interpretative exercise (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)), even as its language makes the provision unambiguously clear. It is the mode of payment under other than the prescribed modes, which is the basis on which the law becomes applicable. Saving in the form of excepting circumstances, precluding ss. 40A(3)/(3A), is provided per first proviso thereto read with the relevant rule (r. 6DD), which is to be therefore strictly adhered to. The same are based on considerations of availability of banking facilities; business expediency; and other relevant factors. These circumstances, despite the same parametric considerations (which include business exigencies), guiding their enumeration by way of delegated legislation (r. 6DD), have witnessed changes from time to time during the long history of the provision. However, 'exceptional and unavoidable circumstances'; 'impracticability of payment'; or 'genuine difficulty', present earlier per r. 6DD (j), obtain no longer. These, therefore, cannot be read into the clear enumeration of specified circumstances, as has been by the ld. CIT(A). Considerations of equity cannot be imported, particularly in a situation as the present case where the same operate to defeat the very purpose of or the object that the provision stands to achieve/attain. In fact, we observe no exceptional or unavoidable circumstance, nor any stands even contended at any stage, including impracticability or genuine difficulty; the assessees's case throughout being of genuineness of expenditure. Genuineness of expenditure or genuineness of payment thereof are, as afore-stated, prerequisites for deduction of an expenditure in computing income, which falls to be considered even de hors and independent of section 40A(3), which only seeks to regulate its mode of payment. Why, would a non-genuine expenditure stand to be allowed 11 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 97 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 December, 1995

v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). There are, on the contrary, decisions galore, rendered during the long history of the provision, clarifying that, save as provided u/r. 6DD, the breach of the monetary limit for cash (or other than the prescribed modes of) payment would attract the rigor of s. 40A(3).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. on 22 April, 1993

v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). There are, on the contrary, decisions galore, rendered during the long history of the provision, clarifying that, save as provided u/r. 6DD, the breach of the monetary limit for cash (or other than the prescribed modes of) payment would attract the rigor of s. 40A(3).
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 180 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs R. Venkataswamy Naidu on 17 February, 1956

The burden to prove its' return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (CIT v. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). The Assessing Officer shall, accordingly, adjudicate the matter, issuing definite findings of fact, on the basis of the material on record, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its' case. We decide accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

The burden to prove its' return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (CIT v. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). The Assessing Officer shall, accordingly, adjudicate the matter, issuing definite findings of fact, on the basis of the material on record, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its' case. We decide accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next