https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345462 The High Court upheld the decision to add the liability amount to the appellant's income under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, citing lack of activity in a sales promotion scheme, absence of refund demands, and the company's use of the deposited amount for investments. The court concluded that the liability had ceased and justified the addition to income, in line with the Sundaram Iyengar case. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Revenue authorities and Tribunal. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345462 The High Court upheld the decision to add the liability amount to the appellant's income under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, citing lack of activity in a sales promotion scheme, absence of refund demands, and the company's use of the deposited amount for investments. The court concluded that the liability had ceased and justified the addition to income, in line with the Sundaram Iyengar case. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Revenue authorities and Tribunal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345462