Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
