Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC ruled on a Benami property case where petitioners initially challenged provisional attachment orders u/s 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Though petitioners bypassed the standard appellate process, the court deemed their proceedings as good faith actions. The court directed petitioners to pursue appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, allowing them until February 28, 2025, to file appeals. The period of pending writ petition will be excluded from limitation u/s 14 of Limitation Act. For ongoing confiscation proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority must grant petitioners adequate time as per Proviso to Section 27(1) before proceeding further. Appeals filed by the specified deadline won't be dismissed on limitation grounds.
HC ruled on a Benami property case where petitioners initially challenged provisional attachment orders u/s 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Though petitioners bypassed the standard appellate process, the court deemed their proceedings as good faith actions. The court directed petitioners to pursue appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, allowing them until February 28, 2025, to file appeals. The period of pending writ petition will be excluded from limitation u/s 14 of Limitation Act. For ongoing confiscation proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority must grant petitioners adequate time as per Proviso to Section 27(1) before proceeding further. Appeals filed by the specified deadline won't be dismissed on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
