9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed an income of Rs. 37,17,788 holding that the expenditure incurred paid by way of cash is contrary to section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be allowed. Against which a second appeal was filed by the Revenue which appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the cash payment of Rs. 37,17,798 made by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore no explanation under rule 6DD of the Rules was required to be assigned by the assessee." 5. Having heard the counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any deduction. Therefore, the claim made by the assessee was rejected. 6. The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on facts have held that it is not an expenditure claimed by the assessee, but it is a payment made to the sub-contractor pursuant to an agreement. There fore, we are of the opinion, that whether it is a business expenditure to attract the provision of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
