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 upholds Income Tax Appeal dismissal, citing Rule 6DD (f) (ii) exceptions & CBDT circular.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Mikki Export International </h3> Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Mikki Export International - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 40A (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of payments made without cross cheque.2. Applicability of circular issued by CBDT exempting cash payments from Section 40A (3) to ongoing proceedings.3. Determination of whether building repair expenses are capital expenditure under Section 31 of the Act.Analysis:1. The case involved an Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A arising from a judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of payments made without a cross cheque under Section 40A (3). The AO disallowed payments made by the respondent-assessee to meat suppliers, citing non-compliance with the provision. The CIT (A) allowed the payments, relying on exceptions under Rule 6DD (f) (ii) and a judgment by the Mumbai Bench of ITAT. The High Court affirmed the decision, stating that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law in following precedent.2. Another issue was the applicability of a circular issued by CBDT exempting cash payments from Section 40A (3) to the ongoing proceedings. The Tribunal, in line with a previous judgment by the High Court, upheld the allowance of certain payments that were deleted by the AO under Section 40A (3). The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the questions raised were covered by a previous judgment involving the same parties.3. The third issue pertained to the classification of building repair expenses as capital expenditure under Section 31 of the Act. The AO had disallowed a sum for building repair expenses, considering them not allowable as capital expenditure. However, the CIT (A) disagreed and deleted the addition, emphasizing that the expenditure related to capital works during the year and fell within the definition of 'current repairs' under Section 31. The High Court, following precedent, upheld the decision of the CIT (A) regarding the building repair expenses.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, affirming the decisions of the CIT (A) and the Tribunal on all issues raised in the case.
TaxTMI 