Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order regarding unexplained investments under s.69 and additions under s.69A during the demonetization period. The case involved disputed bank deposits in Party A's account and statements recorded under s.131(1A). While the AO made additions based on partner statements and survey reports, they failed to follow mandatory CBDT SOPs and guidelines for demonetization cases. The Tribunal directed the AO to conduct fresh assessment following prescribed verification procedures, examine all evidence, and consider the assessee's claims in accordance with law. The ruling emphasized binding nature of CBDT circulars on tax officers and the necessity for uniform approach in handling demonetization-related assessments. Matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order regarding unexplained investments under s.69 and additions under s.69A during the demonetization period. The case involved disputed bank deposits in Party A's account and statements recorded under s.131(1A). While the AO made additions based on partner statements and survey reports, they failed to follow mandatory CBDT SOPs and guidelines for demonetization cases. The Tribunal directed the AO to conduct fresh assessment following prescribed verification procedures, examine all evidence, and consider the assessee's claims in accordance with law. The ruling emphasized binding nature of CBDT circulars on tax officers and the necessity for uniform approach in handling demonetization-related assessments. Matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
