Condonation of Delay denied: communication lapses and corporate restructuring found insufficient; prolonged inaction and lack of bona fides led to ref...
Export Support intervention INSIGHT launched to provide non financial capacity building, trade intelligence and pilot support with defined funding and...
Addition under s. 69 for cash deposits during the demonetisation period was disputed on the ground that the deposits were already covered by additional income disclosed and taxed pursuant to settlement. The settlement order under s. 245D(4) recorded telescoping of cash balances of the assessee and a related trust against the additional income offered for earlier years, and the AO failed to show that such undisclosed income had been deployed elsewhere or that any outside-the-books investments existed. Applying the rule against double taxation of the same income and extending telescoping, the cash deposits were held explained out of previously taxed income, and no separate addition was sustainable; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed - ITAT
Addition under s. 69 for cash deposits during the demonetisation period was disputed on the ground that the deposits were already covered by additional income disclosed and taxed pursuant to settlement. The settlement order under s. 245D(4) recorded telescoping of cash balances of the assessee and a related trust against the additional income offered for earlier years, and the AO failed to show that such undisclosed income had been deployed elsewhere or that any outside-the-books investments existed. Applying the rule against double taxation of the same income and extending telescoping, the cash deposits were held explained out of previously taxed income, and no separate addition was sustainable; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.