Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT sustained the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. The Tribunal held that additions disallowing job-work expenses as alleged sham transactions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) because the assessee produced plausible independent evidence and the Revenue failed to rebut it; those disallowances were therefore not sustained. The Tribunal directed deletion of additions treating demonetization cash deposits as unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, finding cash sales and offered profits accepted and that invoking s.68 would result in impermissible double taxation. Claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA was remitted to the AO for verification and allowance if found in accordance with law.
ITAT sustained the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. The Tribunal held that additions disallowing job-work expenses as alleged sham transactions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) because the assessee produced plausible independent evidence and the Revenue failed to rebut it; those disallowances were therefore not sustained. The Tribunal directed deletion of additions treating demonetization cash deposits as unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, finding cash sales and offered profits accepted and that invoking s.68 would result in impermissible double taxation. Claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA was remitted to the AO for verification and allowance if found in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
