Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
The HC held that no unexplained money under s.69A arose in respect of the cash-in-hand carried from FY 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 and deposited during demonetisation. The court found an inextricable nexus between disclosed bank withdrawals, advances to third parties, interest receipts and subsequent return of funds evidenced in the assessee's balance sheet and the return of income filed and processed under s.143(1). Absence of a mandatory s.143(2) scrutiny notice rendered the return final for that assessment year, and the AO failed to demonstrate that the cash constituted unexplained income warranting invocation of s.69A. Decision: in favour of the assessee.
The HC held that no unexplained money under s.69A arose in respect of the cash-in-hand carried from FY 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 and deposited during demonetisation. The court found an inextricable nexus between disclosed bank withdrawals, advances to third parties, interest receipts and subsequent return of funds evidenced in the assessee's balance sheet and the return of income filed and processed under s.143(1). Absence of a mandatory s.143(2) scrutiny notice rendered the return final for that assessment year, and the AO failed to demonstrate that the cash constituted unexplained income warranting invocation of s.69A. Decision: in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
