Cash Deposit by Debtors to Creditors
This query is : Resolved
03 January 2010
Disallowed or not if any Debtors is depositing cash above Rs.20,000/- into Creditors bank A/c
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
03 January 2010
Whose point of view are you talking about...
If creditors receive cash no disallowance to him.
If debtors deposit cash then disallowed in debtors hand as payment of more than rs. 20000 by cash
If creditors receive cash no disallowance to him.
If debtors deposit cash then disallowed in debtors hand as payment of more than rs. 20000 by cash
04 January 2010
Since it is through banking channels it would not be disallowed.
04 January 2010
If payment towards any expenditure exceeds Rs 20,000, it must be by
means of account-payee crossed cheque or draft. If not, the entire
expenditure is not eligible for deduction.
The monetary limit of Rs 20,000 is prescribed in Section 40A(3) and
there are certain exceptions to the disallowance, which are
mentioned in Rule 6 DD.
Cash payment by the buyer into the bank account of the supplier of
merchandise does not fall within the exception and, hence, liable
for disallowance. In the K. Abdu & Co vs ITO (2008 170 Taxman 297
Kerala) case, cash payment into the bank account of the supplier was
held as breach of Section 40A(3) and liable for disallowance.
means of account-payee crossed cheque or draft. If not, the entire
expenditure is not eligible for deduction.
The monetary limit of Rs 20,000 is prescribed in Section 40A(3) and
there are certain exceptions to the disallowance, which are
mentioned in Rule 6 DD.
Cash payment by the buyer into the bank account of the supplier of
merchandise does not fall within the exception and, hence, liable
for disallowance. In the K. Abdu & Co vs ITO (2008 170 Taxman 297
Kerala) case, cash payment into the bank account of the supplier was
held as breach of Section 40A(3) and liable for disallowance.
08 January 2010
thanks all of your for your cooperation.
16 February 2013
Pls Refer The Case:-
Bangalore Tribunal in Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer (reported in 93 ITD 263 - 278 ITR 77
Its Allowed.
The whole purpose of Sec 40A(3) is to break the mechanism of traill less transsactions, & this transactions has very much established the trail what was required.
Bangalore Tribunal in Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer (reported in 93 ITD 263 - 278 ITR 77
Its Allowed.
The whole purpose of Sec 40A(3) is to break the mechanism of traill less transsactions, & this transactions has very much established the trail what was required.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Refund Annexure-B
- Liable to deduct tds and 44ADA
- Sale of Equity shares for Purchase of Residential Property
- Nomination of Bank for refund in itr 2
- Section 56(2) of the Income tax Act 1961 , Gift to relative .
- ECO SUPPLY REPORTIONG IN GSTR-1
- Is Interest applicable for payment made through credit ledger vide DRC03 for FY 2020-21 & 2021-22
- CCFS 2026 Schemed
- Subscription paid to foreign customer
- Two seprate Invoice needed
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
- GST Refund_RFD-01
- Form10BD was uploaded successfully without any Error but after 24 hours, Form10BE are not available
- Annexure B utility for GST Refund
- Tax amount diff in Gstr1 and 3B in tax compare reports
- Tds on GST in connection with sale to public company
- Restoration of certificate of practice
- Regarding change in correspondence address in SSP portal
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
