Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (7) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . RAO, JJ. For The Appellant (s) : MRS MAUNA M BHATT (174) For The Opponent (s) : None ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Ahmedabad dated 03.12.2018 in I.T(ss).A. No.171/Ahd/2017 for the Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question as the substantial question of law in its memorandum of the Tax Appeal : Whether the Appellate Tribunal has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00/- in a day, therefore no disallowance could be made. Learned first appellate authority has accepted both the contentions and deleted the addition. It is worth to note the finding recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) which reads as under : 6. Ground of appeal No.2 is against the addition of ₹ 2,86,20,701/- on account of cash payments made to farmers. During assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the appellant had purchased lands by making cash payments to farmers. He held that the same was against the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the appellant. The appellant s submissions have been reproduced in para 4.1 above, it has been contended that not only was the addit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellant, is ₹ 13,43,40,451/-, out of which ₹ 2,86,20,701/- has been made in cash. Thus, the appellant s argument that the cash payments were made out of business expediency in some cases, stands to reason. The appellant s case is also covered by the case laws that have been relied on by it. 6.1.3 Considering the facts as discussed above, I am of the view that the A.O. was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 2,86,20,701/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act, and the same is deleted. Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed. 5. With the assistance of Ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We deem it pertinent to take note of sub-clause (3) to Section 40A of the Act as was ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates