https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350582 The Tribunal justified deleting additions of Rs. 1,65,50,000 and Rs. 19,05,000 disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as no expenditure was claimed in the Profit & Loss account. It held that Section 40A(3) did not apply since the land purchase was shown as stock-in-trade in the balance sheet. Exceptions under Rule 6DD for cash payments were considered valid, especially for transactions with villagers lacking banking facilities. Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in favor of the assessee, emphasizing genuine transactions and the absence of trading activity during the year. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350582 The Tribunal justified deleting additions of Rs. 1,65,50,000 and Rs. 19,05,000 disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as no expenditure was claimed in the Profit & Loss account. It held that Section 40A(3) did not apply since the land purchase was shown as stock-in-trade in the balance sheet. Exceptions under Rule 6DD for cash payments were considered valid, especially for transactions with villagers lacking banking facilities. Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in favor of the assessee, emphasizing genuine transactions and the absence of trading activity during the year. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350582