Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
