https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463951 HC held the ITSC erred in rejecting settlement applications at the Section 245D(2C) stage and should have proceeded to Section 245D(4) to examine evidence supporting claimed expenses and determine taxable unaccounted receipts. Because appellants had disclosed receipts and admitted part as income while claiming deductions, a deeper factual inquiry was required. The writ petitions were allowed and the Commission directed to proceed under Section 245D(4). Consequentially, demand notices issued under Section 156 of the IT Act, 1961 were quashed and set aside. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:08:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463951 HC held the ITSC erred in rejecting settlement applications at the Section 245D(2C) stage and should have proceeded to Section 245D(4) to examine evidence supporting claimed expenses and determine taxable unaccounted receipts. Because appellants had disclosed receipts and admitted part as income while claiming deductions, a deeper factual inquiry was required. The writ petitions were allowed and the Commission directed to proceed under Section 245D(4). Consequentially, demand notices issued under Section 156 of the IT Act, 1961 were quashed and set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463951