TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance under section 40A(3) was not justified as no single payment was more that Rs.2,500. Held that- the latest amendment pointed out on behalf of the revenue was not available during the relevant assessment year and the amendment was not retrospective in nature. Thus there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. - 121/97 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2009 - PRAKASH KRISHNA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of the assessment. The assessing authority consequently by invoking section 40(3) disallowed them. 3. The assessing authority was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee and, therefore, disallowed the aforesaid amounts by invoking section 40A (3) of the Income-tax Act. The matter ultimately reached to the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the deduction and held as under: "Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time, provided that the amount exceeding Rs. 2,500 should not be paid except by way of cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft and, if it exceeds amount, then 20 per cent. of the expenditure shall not be allowed as deduction. It does not say that the aggregate of the amounts should not exceed Rs. 2,500. The words used are "in a sum". The said phrase has been interpreted by various High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of interpretation that where a word used in a statute carries more than one meaning, that meaning which makes the provision workable and is nearest to the legislative intention, has to be adopted. The word ` sum' in section 40A(3), second proviso, of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is used only to indicate an amount of money and does not refer to the totality of the expenditure." 5. Against the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
