Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC dismissed the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the penalty under s.129E of the 1962 Act, noting the SC's authority on identical facts and the applicability of the amended provision to pending proceedings. On being asked whether the appellant would make the pre-deposit, counsel confirmed inability to do so; consequently the HC refused to remit the matter to CESTAT for consideration on merits. Given non-compliance with the condition precedent and absence of a prima facie case warranting equitable relief, the appeal is rejected and stands dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the penalty under s.129E of the 1962 Act, noting the SC's authority on identical facts and the applicability of the amended provision to pending proceedings. On being asked whether the appellant would make the pre-deposit, counsel confirmed inability to do so; consequently the HC refused to remit the matter to CESTAT for consideration on merits. Given non-compliance with the condition precedent and absence of a prima facie case warranting equitable relief, the appeal is rejected and stands dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
