Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Addition u/s 94A - transactions with persons located in notified jurisdictional area - We note with the able assistance of both the parties that the CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion holding the impugned “CCDs” to be a sham transaction whilst deleting the additions in issue made u/s 94A of the Act. - The assessee’s plea before us is that this entire “sham transactions” issue has become redundant once the CIT(A) holds section 94A itself as not applicable. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate that the CIT(A) needs to examine and adjudicate the above stated “sham transactions” issue. - AT
Addition u/s 94A - transactions with persons located in notified jurisdictional area - We note with the able assistance of both the parties that the CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion holding the impugned “CCDs” to be a sham transaction whilst deleting the additions in issue made u/s 94A of the Act. - The assessee’s plea before us is that this entire “sham transactions” issue has become redundant once the CIT(A) holds section 94A itself as not applicable. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate that the CIT(A) needs to examine and adjudicate the above stated “sham transactions” issue. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
