Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 alleging AO did not examine provision for subcontracting expenses and refund claim during reassessment proceedings. Assessee contended queries were addressed u/s 133(6). ITAT held CIT cannot reappreciate same material considered by AO in reassessment, as legal presumption under Evidence Act exists that AO passed order properly. AO duly deliberated on subcontract expenses after issuing questionnaire. Refund issue was consequential to reassessment order without specific AO order, precluding CIT's jurisdiction u/s 263. Assessee cannot agitate Section 154 order not challenged. Case laws cited were distinguished on facts. Impugned CIT order set aside, assessee's appeal allowed.
CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 alleging AO did not examine provision for subcontracting expenses and refund claim during reassessment proceedings. Assessee contended queries were addressed u/s 133(6). ITAT held CIT cannot reappreciate same material considered by AO in reassessment, as legal presumption under Evidence Act exists that AO passed order properly. AO duly deliberated on subcontract expenses after issuing questionnaire. Refund issue was consequential to reassessment order without specific AO order, precluding CIT's jurisdiction u/s 263. Assessee cannot agitate Section 154 order not challenged. Case laws cited were distinguished on facts. Impugned CIT order set aside, assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
