TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision on Tax Treatment of Cash Payments & Section 115BBE</h1> <h3>Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Visakhapatnam. Versus Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, (Vice Versa)</h3> Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Visakhapatnam. Versus Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, (Vice Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Treatment of cash payments as 'unaccounted but explained' or 'unexplained'.2. Applicability of Section 115BBE for taxation of undisclosed income.3. Eligibility for telescoping benefit of income disclosed under IDS 2016.Summary:Issue 1: Treatment of Cash PaymentsThe Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to treat cash payments of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- as 'unaccounted but explained'. The Ld. DR argued that these payments should be considered 'unexplained' as they were made during the demonetization period and were not disclosed under the IDS or PMGKY schemes. The Ld. AR defended the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the source of cash was business receipts generated outside the books of account, which was admitted in the sworn statement. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the cash was not business income and did not examine how the cash was generated outside the books.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 115BBEThe Revenue contended that the undisclosed income should be taxed under Section 115BBE at special rates. The Ld. AO had denied the telescoping benefit and considered the cash as unexplained, invoking Section 115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) disagreed, finding that the assessee had explained the source of income as business receipts. The Tribunal supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s view, stating that the Ld. AO did not provide evidence to prove the income was not from business, thus Section 115BBE was not applicable.Issue 3: Eligibility for Telescoping BenefitThe Ld. AO denied the telescoping benefit of Rs. 1 Cr disclosed under IDS 2016, arguing it was for prior assessment years. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the benefit, verifying the IDS disclosure and finding that the source of income was explained. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not raise a specific ground regarding telescoping in the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, supporting the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Cross Objection by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous, as the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
