Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A. Deletion of additions on forfeited amount and various expenses was justified. The Delhi High Court precedent supported treating forfeited advance as business expenditure. The CIT (A) deleted disallowance of various expenses due to lack of AO's remand report. The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. The case was remanded to CIT (A) for compliance with Rule 46A and fresh decision on specified grounds.
The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A. Deletion of additions on forfeited amount and various expenses was justified. The Delhi High Court precedent supported treating forfeited advance as business expenditure. The CIT (A) deleted disallowance of various expenses due to lack of AO's remand report. The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. The case was remanded to CIT (A) for compliance with Rule 46A and fresh decision on specified grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
