Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
