https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186060 The HC ruled in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessee, a partnership firm, failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or genuine difficulty justifying cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 to an associate concern. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was deemed illogical, as it undermined the purpose of preventing tax evasion. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the requirement of payments by crossed cheque or demand draft. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186060 The HC ruled in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessee, a partnership firm, failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or genuine difficulty justifying cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 to an associate concern. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was deemed illogical, as it undermined the purpose of preventing tax evasion. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the requirement of payments by crossed cheque or demand draft. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186060