Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
