https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780160 Bombay HC set aside the assessment order under s.147 read with ss.144/144B and the consequential demand for AY 2014-15, holding the PCA (PCIT) had validly quashed parts of the draft assessment: income of Rs.43 lakh already assessed in prior year and cash deposits accepted as disclosed under the IDS, 2016. The HC upheld limitation on reopening except as to an Rs.80 lakh property purchase where source was unexplained; unaccounted investment was reduced to Rs.2,84,060 under s.69. The Revenue's challenge to the IDS declaration was rejected. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:18:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780160 Bombay HC set aside the assessment order under s.147 read with ss.144/144B and the consequential demand for AY 2014-15, holding the PCA (PCIT) had validly quashed parts of the draft assessment: income of Rs.43 lakh already assessed in prior year and cash deposits accepted as disclosed under the IDS, 2016. The HC upheld limitation on reopening except as to an Rs.80 lakh property purchase where source was unexplained; unaccounted investment was reduced to Rs.2,84,060 under s.69. The Revenue's challenge to the IDS declaration was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780160