https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182162 A forfeited security deposit paid before election notification was not treated as expenditure incurred in connection with the election, because election expenses under the statutory scheme covered only amounts actually incurred or authorised within the prescribed accounting period. Although the statutory language was broad, the liability to forfeit arose before the relevant period and the payment was not properly part of the candidate's election return. Accordingly, the deposit could not be added to declared election expenses, and no contravention of the expenditure ceiling or corrupt practice was made out. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 May 2016 11:26:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182162 A forfeited security deposit paid before election notification was not treated as expenditure incurred in connection with the election, because election expenses under the statutory scheme covered only amounts actually incurred or authorised within the prescribed accounting period. Although the statutory language was broad, the liability to forfeit arose before the relevant period and the payment was not properly part of the candidate's election return. Accordingly, the deposit could not be added to declared election expenses, and no contravention of the expenditure ceiling or corrupt practice was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182162