Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that, District Supply Officer’s order did not mandate any mode of payment either in cash or by cheque and moreover, there were banking channels available even when supplies had been effected, accordingly order passed by Tribunal confirming disallowance of cash payments did not require any interference ( AY.2009 -10)
Madhav Govind Dhulshete. v. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 149 (Bom.)(HC )
S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Payment made to notified dealer- District Supply Officer’s order did not mandate any mode of payment either in cash or by cheque, and, moreover, there were banking channels available even when supplies had been effected, impugned disallowance was rightly made by authorities. [S. 260A, R.6DD]