Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT set aside both CIT(A) and AO orders, remanding the matter to AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee, an Alternative Investment Fund Category-II registered under SEBI following cash accounting, challenged additions based on Form 26AS for income not actually received. CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, incorrectly assuming assessee opted for Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024 for assessment order when it was only for penalty order. ITAT noted assessee's inconsistent treatment of TDS income across assessment years violated proper accounting principles. DR raised no serious objection to remand request. ITAT directed AO to consider assessee's submissions per law, grant requisite relief if permissible, and make additions only after providing adequate hearing opportunity. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT set aside both CIT(A) and AO orders, remanding the matter to AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee, an Alternative Investment Fund Category-II registered under SEBI following cash accounting, challenged additions based on Form 26AS for income not actually received. CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, incorrectly assuming assessee opted for Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024 for assessment order when it was only for penalty order. ITAT noted assessee's inconsistent treatment of TDS income across assessment years violated proper accounting principles. DR raised no serious objection to remand request. ITAT directed AO to consider assessee's submissions per law, grant requisite relief if permissible, and make additions only after providing adequate hearing opportunity. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
