https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304835 An addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted where the entries were already reflected in the regular books, the issue had been accepted in an earlier year on identical facts, and the same treatment had been considered in group settlement proceedings; mere pendency of challenge to the settlement order did not justify sustaining the addition. By contrast, the claim for deduction of education cess failed because a retrospective amendment through Finance Act, 2022, Explanation 3, removed the legal basis for such deduction. The matter therefore resulted in a mixed outcome, with relief on the unexplained expenditure issue and disallowance of the cess deduction. en-us Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Oct 2022 21:33:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304835 An addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted where the entries were already reflected in the regular books, the issue had been accepted in an earlier year on identical facts, and the same treatment had been considered in group settlement proceedings; mere pendency of challenge to the settlement order did not justify sustaining the addition. By contrast, the claim for deduction of education cess failed because a retrospective amendment through Finance Act, 2022, Explanation 3, removed the legal basis for such deduction. The matter therefore resulted in a mixed outcome, with relief on the unexplained expenditure issue and disallowance of the cess deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304835