Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4301 to 4320 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Raipur, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an appeal regarding unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in a jointly held bank account. The AR argued that the cash came from withdrawals/savings, not requiring an addition. The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits did not appear in the assessee's "books of account," u/s. 68 did not apply. Citing a jurisdictional defect, the Tribunal vacated the addition, following precedent from CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi. Decision favored the assessee.
The ITAT Raipur, an Appellate Tribunal, considered an appeal regarding unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in a jointly held bank account. The AR argued that the cash came from withdrawals/savings, not requiring an addition. The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits did not appear in the assessee's "books of account," u/s. 68 did not apply. Citing a jurisdictional defect, the Tribunal vacated the addition, following precedent from CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi. Decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
