Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT ruled against AO's addition under s.56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs. 50,65,900/- in a limited scrutiny case, finding the AO lacked jurisdiction to examine property valuation issues beyond the specific CASS-selected parameters without converting to complete scrutiny per CBDT Instruction No.20/2015. On s.54B deduction claim, ITAT partially allowed relief for two agricultural land parcels (1.424 hectares and 1.781 hectares) after confirming their agricultural usage in two years preceding transfer. The tribunal directed AO to verify other statutory conditions and allow appropriate deduction. The assessment order under s.143(3) was modified accordingly, with jurisdictional grounds quashed and agricultural land deduction claims partially sustained.
ITAT ruled against AO's addition under s.56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs. 50,65,900/- in a limited scrutiny case, finding the AO lacked jurisdiction to examine property valuation issues beyond the specific CASS-selected parameters without converting to complete scrutiny per CBDT Instruction No.20/2015. On s.54B deduction claim, ITAT partially allowed relief for two agricultural land parcels (1.424 hectares and 1.781 hectares) after confirming their agricultural usage in two years preceding transfer. The tribunal directed AO to verify other statutory conditions and allow appropriate deduction. The assessment order under s.143(3) was modified accordingly, with jurisdictional grounds quashed and agricultural land deduction claims partially sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
