Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that the AO committed illegality by ignoring a timely-filed revised return under s.139(5) (filed 23.02.2015) and proceeding on the original return pursuant to notice under s.143(2), rendering the assessment order invalid. The ITAT erred in recording an incorrect revised-return date and wrongly treating the defect as mere irregularity. The HC held the original return stood obliterated upon filing of the revised return, and s.143 applies equally to revised returns. The HC set aside the AO's assessment order, held the ITAT's conclusion perverse, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination of taxable income after taking into account the revised return, in accordance with law.
HC held that the AO committed illegality by ignoring a timely-filed revised return under s.139(5) (filed 23.02.2015) and proceeding on the original return pursuant to notice under s.143(2), rendering the assessment order invalid. The ITAT erred in recording an incorrect revised-return date and wrongly treating the defect as mere irregularity. The HC held the original return stood obliterated upon filing of the revised return, and s.143 applies equally to revised returns. The HC set aside the AO's assessment order, held the ITAT's conclusion perverse, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination of taxable income after taking into account the revised return, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
