Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
