TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Confirms Tribunal's Ruling on Cash Payments in 2001-02, Dismisses Revenue's Appeal on Unexplained Payments.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus KKSK. Leather Processor P. Limited.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus KKSK. Leather Processor P. Limited. - [2007] 292 ITR 669, 169 TAXMANN 251 Issues:1. Valuation of closing stock under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Genuineness of payments made to shandy persons without letters of confirmation.3. Assessment year 2001-02.Analysis:1. The assessment for the year 2001-02 involved issues of undervaluation of closing stock and unexplained payments to shandy persons. The first appellate authority rejected the enhancement of closing stock value but confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 28,36,000 for payments to shandy persons. The Commissioner applied section 40A(3) and rule 6DD to justify the cash payments, citing the nature of the business. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings on the closing stock valuation, ruling out any violation of rule 46A. It remitted the issue of unexplained payments for further substantiation by the Assessing Officer.2. The Tribunal also addressed the Revenue's concerns regarding the purchase of raw materials, emphasizing that lack of confirmation by creditors does not imply unaccounted money usage. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the Rs. 28,36,600 addition, seeking clarification from the assessee. Regarding section 40A(3) disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the necessity of cash payments at shandies due to the unorganized nature of the sector. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this matter.3. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decisions, arguing lack of justification for deletion of undervaluation and questioning the additional evidence considered. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, noting the legitimate reasons for cash payments at shandies based on the nature of the trade. Citing previous judgments and circulars, the High Court affirmed the relief granted to the assessee. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and costs were not awarded.
TaxTMI 