Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld disallowance under Section 40A(3) against a private limited construction company for cash payments exceeding statutory limits in land purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that genuine transactions are exempt from Section 40A(3), emphasizing that the provision applies to otherwise legitimate expenses paid in cash beyond prescribed thresholds. The court distinguished the Achal Alloy precedent, noting it involved business exigency with illiterate payees lacking bank accounts. The tribunal dismissed arguments that no expenditure was incurred merely because purchased land remained in closing stock, holding that debiting purchases to profit and loss account constituted sufficient expenditure recognition. The decision favored revenue authorities, confirming that Section 40A(3) operates independently of transaction genuineness when cash payment limits are exceeded.
ITAT upheld disallowance under Section 40A(3) against a private limited construction company for cash payments exceeding statutory limits in land purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that genuine transactions are exempt from Section 40A(3), emphasizing that the provision applies to otherwise legitimate expenses paid in cash beyond prescribed thresholds. The court distinguished the Achal Alloy precedent, noting it involved business exigency with illiterate payees lacking bank accounts. The tribunal dismissed arguments that no expenditure was incurred merely because purchased land remained in closing stock, holding that debiting purchases to profit and loss account constituted sufficient expenditure recognition. The decision favored revenue authorities, confirming that Section 40A(3) operates independently of transaction genuineness when cash payment limits are exceeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
