Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the respondent company's bank account as proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found multiple FIRs led to ECIR/PAO against the accused and that the respondent remained the recipient of allegedly tainted funds; no written cancellation or forfeiture notice under the booking agreement was produced and the rooms were not used, supporting inference the funds were sheltered to avoid attachment. The appellant director was neither an accused nor subject to attachment, and lacked standing to challenge the order. Absent demonstrable lawful cancellation or written forfeiture, the attachment of amounts transferred to the respondent was affirmed.
The AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the provisional attachment of the respondent company's bank account as proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found multiple FIRs led to ECIR/PAO against the accused and that the respondent remained the recipient of allegedly tainted funds; no written cancellation or forfeiture notice under the booking agreement was produced and the rooms were not used, supporting inference the funds were sheltered to avoid attachment. The appellant director was neither an accused nor subject to attachment, and lacked standing to challenge the order. Absent demonstrable lawful cancellation or written forfeiture, the attachment of amounts transferred to the respondent was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
