Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting evidence not produced before AO, as Rule 46(4) permits Appellate Authority to call for evidence. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition of Rs. 60 lakh unsecured loan from mother u/s 68, after examining relevant material. CIT(A) correctly deleted addition of sundry creditors u/s 68, as most were paid in subsequent years and formed part of business transactions. No addition tenable u/s 41(1) for sundry creditors. CIT(A) rightly restricted income estimation to 6% of turnover. Revenue's appeal dismissed by ITAT.
CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting evidence not produced before AO, as Rule 46(4) permits Appellate Authority to call for evidence. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition of Rs. 60 lakh unsecured loan from mother u/s 68, after examining relevant material. CIT(A) correctly deleted addition of sundry creditors u/s 68, as most were paid in subsequent years and formed part of business transactions. No addition tenable u/s 41(1) for sundry creditors. CIT(A) rightly restricted income estimation to 6% of turnover. Revenue's appeal dismissed by ITAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
