Income Tax

Income offered before the Settlement Commission, cannot be taxed again u/s 143(3) – ITAT

Income offered and taxed in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, cannot be taxed again in the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2944 (2019) (05) ITAT

The asssessee had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) by sustaining the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of share application money received.

It was submitted that the assessee had moved an application before the Settlement Commission and the aforesaid addition presently in contest was already offered before the Settlement Commissions as included by way of additional income as reflected in the order of the Settlement Commission under ection. 245D(4) of the Act.

The assessee accordingly submitted that the income having already been offered before the Settlement Commission cannot once again be added in the regular assessment which will amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal expressed agreement with the contention of the assessee on principle that the same income if offered and taxed in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, cannot be included once again in the present proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the AO for factual verification on this aspect.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

14 hours ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

3 days ago
  • RTI

Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

7 days ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

1 week ago