Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC held that an application before the Settlement Commission pending decision requires an order under section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. Section 245HA applies only if the settlement application is rejected without terms, thereby reviving appellate proceedings. The Revenue's contention that the assessee must forfeit the right to contest the assessment on merits upon such rejection was rejected as misconceived. Given the facts, the ITAT rightly condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the first appeal. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, affirming the continuation of appellate remedy despite the pending settlement application.
The SC held that an application before the Settlement Commission pending decision requires an order under section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. Section 245HA applies only if the settlement application is rejected without terms, thereby reviving appellate proceedings. The Revenue's contention that the assessee must forfeit the right to contest the assessment on merits upon such rejection was rejected as misconceived. Given the facts, the ITAT rightly condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the first appeal. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, affirming the continuation of appellate remedy despite the pending settlement application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
