<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Demonetisation cash deposits and s69 addition: whether already covered by s245D(4) settlement income; double-tax bar upheld, appeal dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95409</link>
    <description>Addition under s. 69 for cash deposits during the demonetisation period was disputed on the ground that the deposits were already covered by additional income disclosed and taxed pursuant to settlement. The settlement order under s. 245D(4) recorded telescoping of cash balances of the assessee and a related trust against the additional income offered for earlier years, and the AO failed to show that such undisclosed income had been deployed elsewhere or that any outside-the-books investments existed. Applying the rule against double taxation of the same income and extending telescoping, the cash deposits were held explained out of previously taxed income, and no separate addition was sustainable; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed - ITAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Demonetisation cash deposits and s69 addition: whether already covered by s245D(4) settlement income; double-tax bar upheld, appeal dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95409</link>
      <description>Addition under s. 69 for cash deposits during the demonetisation period was disputed on the ground that the deposits were already covered by additional income disclosed and taxed pursuant to settlement. The settlement order under s. 245D(4) recorded telescoping of cash balances of the assessee and a related trust against the additional income offered for earlier years, and the AO failed to show that such undisclosed income had been deployed elsewhere or that any outside-the-books investments existed. Applying the rule against double taxation of the same income and extending telescoping, the cash deposits were held explained out of previously taxed income, and no separate addition was sustainable; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed - ITAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>