Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the rejection of the books of account by CIT(A) was unwarranted as no cogent defects were demonstrated and conclusions were based on conjecture; the AO's reliance on such rejection to invoke provisions of s.68/s.69A and tax under s.115BBE was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed the survey u/s.133A disclosed no incriminating material, the books were maintained on mercantile basis and audited with true and fair certification, and the assessment was incorrectly framed u/s.143(3) despite alleged rejection requiring s.144. Additions treating demonetized-currency bank deposits as bogus sales were deleted as speculative and resulting trading-loss recalculation was impractical.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the rejection of the books of account by CIT(A) was unwarranted as no cogent defects were demonstrated and conclusions were based on conjecture; the AO's reliance on such rejection to invoke provisions of s.68/s.69A and tax under s.115BBE was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed the survey u/s.133A disclosed no incriminating material, the books were maintained on mercantile basis and audited with true and fair certification, and the assessment was incorrectly framed u/s.143(3) despite alleged rejection requiring s.144. Additions treating demonetized-currency bank deposits as bogus sales were deleted as speculative and resulting trading-loss recalculation was impractical.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
