Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.