Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
