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: Individual payments, not total spending, subject to statutory limit under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa Versus Aloo Supply Co.</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa Versus Aloo Supply Co. - [1980] 121 ITR 680, 3 TAXMANN 572 Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act regarding the statutory limit of Rs. 2,500 for payments made to a party, and whether payees' insistence on cash payment can be considered an exceptional circumstance u/r 6DD(j) of the I.T. Rules.Interpretation of u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act:The case involved an assessee firm dealing in wholesale potato and onion, facing disallowance of cash payments under s. 40A(3) of the Act. The firm argued that payments were due to exceptional circumstances and fell under the exception of r. 6DD(j) of the Rules. The Tribunal found that payments were made on different occasions on the same day, consolidated in one entry in the cash book. As no single payment exceeded Rs. 2,500, the Tribunal held that the statutory limit did not apply. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the word 'sum' in the provision referred to an amount of money, not the total expenditure. The Court ruled that the limit applies to payments made at a time, not the aggregate of payments in a day.Exceptional circumstances u/r 6DD(j) of the I.T. Rules:The assessee argued that payees insisted on cash payments due to their agents coming from distant places, taking money as needed during their stay. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, stating that the firm did not know the total payment to a party in advance, as payments were based on demand. The Court upheld this finding as a fact, noting that the provision in question should be interpreted to be workable and practical. As the statutory limit did not apply to the firm's payment method, the second question regarding exceptional circumstances did not need to be answered.This judgment clarifies the application of the statutory limit under s. 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act to payments made at a time, not the aggregate of payments in a day, and highlights the importance of interpreting tax provisions in a practical and workable manner.
TaxTMI 