Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
HC dismissed the assessee's challenge to the revisional order u/s 264, upholding characterization of the disclosed sums as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, failure to explain source of income, and minimal compliance with notices u/s 142(1). The HC held the revisional authority's view to be a plausible one warranting no interference under Art. 226. However, following precedent, HC held that partial payments made under IDS, 2016 could not be retained by Revenue without authority of law and directed that credit be given for such installments (or adjustment under other schemes) in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
HC dismissed the assessee's challenge to the revisional order u/s 264, upholding characterization of the disclosed sums as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, failure to explain source of income, and minimal compliance with notices u/s 142(1). The HC held the revisional authority's view to be a plausible one warranting no interference under Art. 226. However, following precedent, HC held that partial payments made under IDS, 2016 could not be retained by Revenue without authority of law and directed that credit be given for such installments (or adjustment under other schemes) in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
