Then it will be allowed.
Vineet Goyal
(Assistant Manager - Finance & Accounts)
(702 Points)
Replied 07 February 2012
Then it will be allowed.
Kaushik Dedhiya
(Associate CWA CA Final)
(133 Points)
Replied 07 February 2012
Hi vignesh..first of all depreciation is non cash exps and next it is in Sec.32, so dis aloowance of it is not possible as Sec.40A(3) dosnt invoke in case of depreciation. Sec.40A(3) is related to Cash exps. So your view is wrong.
BHARAT BAMBHAROLIYA
(CA FINAL)
(57 Points)
Replied 09 February 2012
I m not agreed with all of above comment...................
Your rent is also not disallowed if u proov genueiness of your transaction. Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. If your transaction is genuine than dont worry about it.
Kaushik Dedhiya
(Associate CWA CA Final)
(133 Points)
Replied 09 February 2012
Hi, Bharat in that sense if we prove genuineness of each expenses then it shall never be dis aloowed and Sec.40A(3) wouldn't apply.. for e.g. let say Exps. of Rs.22,000/- in cash for telephone bill payment of a large co..will that be allowed??? if it will be allowed then assessee can provide receipt for any exps. so nthng will be dis allowed then??? i may be wrong but kindly clarify....
Kaushik Dedhiya
(Associate CWA CA Final)
(133 Points)
Replied 09 February 2012
However as per Rule 6DD if there is genuine hardship to assessee, where it is difficult to locate bank or holiday then it wont be disallowed, but where you have all the facilities but u didnt utilise then it will surely be disallowed....
Kaushik Dedhiya
(Associate CWA CA Final)
(133 Points)
Replied 09 February 2012
However as per Rule 6DD if there is genuine hardship to assessee, where it is difficult to locate bank or holiday then it wont be disallowed, but where you have all the facilities but u didnt utilise then it will surely be disallowed....
BHARAT BAMBHAROLIYA
(CA FINAL)
(57 Points)
Replied 10 February 2012
Dear Kaushik please refer following case law for prov yor transaction is whether genuine.
* Commisssioner of income tax Vs Raja pal Automobiles (2010) 320 ITR 185
* CIT Vs Ashola Steel Industries & Floor mill 293 ITR 192
* Chandra Pracha syntex ltd Vs CIT 46 TTJ
* AttarSing Gurmukh Singh Vs ITO 191 ITR 667
If u have any doubt plese mail: bharat11485 @ gmail.com
Landmark Judgments: Important Provisions of the EPF & ESI Act interpreted by the Honorable Supreme Court of India