Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 
