9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term "expenditure" in u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act.
Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered a case where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding the interpretation of the term "expenditure" in u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, had made payments for raw material without using crossed cheques or bank drafts, leading to a disallowance by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's argument that such payments for raw material did not constitute expenditure under u/s 40A(3) as the amount spent returned in the form of stock-in-trade. The Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the introduction of u/s 40A(3) to prevent tax evasion through cash expenditures. It highlighted that the term "expenditure" in u/s 40A(3) should not be narrowly interpreted to exclude payments made for goods purchased, as it would defeat the purpose of the provision. Referring to legal precedents and dictionary definitions, the Court concluded that payments for the purchase of goods indeed fall within the meaning of "expenditure" in u/s 40A(3. The Court's decision was supported by previous rulings from the Allahabad, Orissa, and Kerala High Courts. Ultimately, the question referred to the Court was answered in the negative, affirming that payments made for the purchase of goods are considered as "expenditure" under u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act.
|
