9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri M.Lava, Advocate For The Respondent. JUDGMENT Nagarathna, The Revenue has filed this appeal by challenging the order. dated 14.03.2005 passed in ITA No. 773/Bang/2003 raising the following question oflaw. i) Whether the Tribunal was Correct in holding that for the violation committed by the Assessee of making payment beyond ₹ 10,000/- in cash contrary to Section 40A(3)A(3) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring a loss. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer found that payment of ₹ 7,00,036/- by way of cash under the heading Lorry Hire Account was in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly disallowed the same as expenditure by not accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Being aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade to an extent of ₹ 7,OO,036/- is in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and not coming within the scope of Rule 6DD of the Rules. 5. At the outset we note that the nature of business of the Assessee is transport business and fleet operations for which the Assessee have engaged several drivers, cleaners and other employees for conducting its transport business. It would be in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness could be conducted in a beneficial and proper manner. We also note that the persons to whom the payments have been made are brought to the notice of the Department and they are identifiable persons. Therefore we do not see any violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and that the Tribunal was justified in granting the relief to the Assessee. 7. Hence, substantial questions of law raised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
