Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT allowed partial relief, holding that denial of exemption under s.54F solely because the assessee did not deposit unspent capital gains in the CGAS prior to filing under s.139(1) is not fatal. The matter is remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication: AO must examine verifiable evidence that the sale proceeds were applied to construction and that costs were incurred within the temporal limits prescribed by s.54(1)/s.54F(1) (including consideration of a belated return filed under s.139(4)). If the AO finds that requisite utilization occurred within the statutory period, the assessee is entitled to deduction under s.54F; otherwise the claim shall be disallowed.
ITAT allowed partial relief, holding that denial of exemption under s.54F solely because the assessee did not deposit unspent capital gains in the CGAS prior to filing under s.139(1) is not fatal. The matter is remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication: AO must examine verifiable evidence that the sale proceeds were applied to construction and that costs were incurred within the temporal limits prescribed by s.54(1)/s.54F(1) (including consideration of a belated return filed under s.139(4)). If the AO finds that requisite utilization occurred within the statutory period, the assessee is entitled to deduction under s.54F; otherwise the claim shall be disallowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
