Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not recognizing the correct depreciation figure of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as per the Tax Audit Report, instead of the incorrectly stated Rs. 1,03,13,420/- in the ITR. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the depreciation issue. Regarding the bonus payment under section 43B, the ITAT found that CIT(A) failed to address this issue properly and remanded it back with directions to pass a speaking order according to law. The CIT(A) should have verified that the bonus was paid before the due date of filing the income tax return. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not recognizing the correct depreciation figure of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as per the Tax Audit Report, instead of the incorrectly stated Rs. 1,03,13,420/- in the ITR. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the depreciation issue. Regarding the bonus payment under section 43B, the ITAT found that CIT(A) failed to address this issue properly and remanded it back with directions to pass a speaking order according to law. The CIT(A) should have verified that the bonus was paid before the due date of filing the income tax return. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
