Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC set aside the order of the 1st respondent/Interim Board for Settlement-II rejecting the petitioner's third settlement application under section 245C. The Settlement Board had found non-disclosure of income relating to an alleged Rs. 18 Crores transaction from Smt. VK Sasikala, concluding the petitioner did not make full and true disclosure. However, the Adjudicating Authority had previously examined the transaction and concluded no such amount was received, a finding not considered by the Settlement Board. The HC held that the Settlement Board must base rejection on valid reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Adjudicating Authority's findings. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
The HC set aside the order of the 1st respondent/Interim Board for Settlement-II rejecting the petitioner's third settlement application under section 245C. The Settlement Board had found non-disclosure of income relating to an alleged Rs. 18 Crores transaction from Smt. VK Sasikala, concluding the petitioner did not make full and true disclosure. However, the Adjudicating Authority had previously examined the transaction and concluded no such amount was received, a finding not considered by the Settlement Board. The HC held that the Settlement Board must base rejection on valid reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Adjudicating Authority's findings. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
