Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that the respondent erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order under s.143(3); the matter sought to be revised before the respondent concerned the rejection of the appellants' rectification application decided on 9 Feb 2024, and the s.264 revision filed on 14 Jan 2025 fell within the one-year limitation prescribed by s.264. The respondent's conclusion that the revision was time-barred was unsustainable. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent to adjudicate the appellants' s.264 revision application on merits and in accordance with law.
HC held that the respondent erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order under s.143(3); the matter sought to be revised before the respondent concerned the rejection of the appellants' rectification application decided on 9 Feb 2024, and the s.264 revision filed on 14 Jan 2025 fell within the one-year limitation prescribed by s.264. The respondent's conclusion that the revision was time-barred was unsustainable. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent to adjudicate the appellants' s.264 revision application on merits and in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
