Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
