Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The ITAT Delhi considered an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee's explanation of cash deposits from sales was rejected by AO and CIT(A) despite not rejecting books of accounts. The Tribunal held that absence of cash sales in prior years doesn't justify rejecting the explanation when books were not rejected and trading results were accepted. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions u/s 69A/68, emphasizing that cash deposits were from declared sales proceeds. Citing cases like Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of supporting evidence in such matters.
The ITAT Delhi considered an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee's explanation of cash deposits from sales was rejected by AO and CIT(A) despite not rejecting books of accounts. The Tribunal held that absence of cash sales in prior years doesn't justify rejecting the explanation when books were not rejected and trading results were accepted. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions u/s 69A/68, emphasizing that cash deposits were from declared sales proceeds. Citing cases like Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of supporting evidence in such matters.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
