https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782534 HC upheld the Revisional Authority's order u/s 264 characterizing the undeclared amounts as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, lack of satisfactory explanation of source, and minimal compliance in reassessment. The view of the Authority was held to be plausible and not amenable to interference under Art. 226. However, on the issue of tax paid under IDS, 2016, HC held that while non-payment of all installments disentitled the assessee to IDS benefits, the Revenue cannot retain part-payments without authority of law and must grant credit of such amounts, following binding precedent. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782534 HC upheld the Revisional Authority's order u/s 264 characterizing the undeclared amounts as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, lack of satisfactory explanation of source, and minimal compliance in reassessment. The view of the Authority was held to be plausible and not amenable to interference under Art. 226. However, on the issue of tax paid under IDS, 2016, HC held that while non-payment of all installments disentitled the assessee to IDS benefits, the Revenue cannot retain part-payments without authority of law and must grant credit of such amounts, following binding precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782534