Skip to content


ideal Tannery Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 63 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1979]117ITR34(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 40A(3); Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 6DD
Appellantideal Tannery
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateR.K. Gulati, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - here the purchases in question were of hides and skins and the finding of the tribunal is that the assessee had failed to establish that the payments were made to the producer......? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under rule 6dd of the i.t. rules, 1962 ?' 2. on the first question, a bench of this court in u. p. hardware store v. cit : [1976]104itr664(all) has held that payments made to suppliers for purchase of goods are expenditure within the meaning of section 40a(3) of the act. in view of this decision, the first question is answered in the affirmative.3. on the second question, rule 6dd provides relief from the operation of section 40a(3), inter alia, where the payment exceeding a sum of rs. 2,500 is made for the purchase of produce of animal husbandry to the producers of such articles. here the purchases in question were of hides and skins and the finding of the tribunal is that the.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J.

1. Two questions of law have been referred for our opinion :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure mentioned under Section 40A(3) includes expenditure by way of purchases ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under Rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules, 1962 ?'

2. On the first question, a Bench of this court in U. P. Hardware Store v. CIT : [1976]104ITR664(All) has held that payments made to suppliers for purchase of goods are expenditure within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of this decision, the first question is answered in the affirmative.

3. On the second question, Rule 6DD provides relief from the operation of Section 40A(3), inter alia, where the payment exceeding a sum of Rs. 2,500 is made for the purchase of produce of animal husbandry to the producers of such articles. Here the purchases in question were of hides and skins and the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee had failed to establish that the payments were made to the producer. On that finding of fact the second question is answered in the negative.

4. Consequently, both the questions are answered in favour of thedepartment and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitledto costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //