The Hon’ble Sri Justice v. Ramasubramanian

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS I.T.T.A.No. 265 of 2016 JUDGMENT:(Per VRS,J) The assessee has come up with the above appealunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1)Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inlaw in holding that exceptional circumstances should existfor making cash payments to avoid disallowance underSection 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act r/w Rule 6DD(k) ofthe Income Tax Rules?law in holding that exceptional circumstances should existfor making cash payments to avoid disallowance underSection 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act r/w Rule 6DD(k) ofthe Income Tax Rules? 2)Whether the decision of the ITAT that disallowance underSection 40A(3) being not total, but only 20% thereof, thedisallowance was justified, is correct in law? andSection 40A(3) being not total, but only 20% thereof, thedisallowance was justified, is correct in law? and 3)Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal went wrong inproper appreciation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) ofIncome Tax Act and Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules andtheir applicability to the facts of the case?proper appreciation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) ofIncome Tax Act and Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules andtheir applicability to the facts of the case? It is admitted by Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant, that these questionsof law are covered against the assessee, by a judgmentof this Court, dated 18.10.2014, in I.T.T.A.No.262 of 2014. Therefore, following the same, this appeal is alsodismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if anypending in the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order asto costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ____________________ ANIS, J.2[nd] August, 2016cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIANÖ AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS cbs I.T.T.A.No.265 of 2016(Per VRS,J) 2[nd] August, 2016