Judicial discipline requires consistent reassessment treatment where identical facts were decided for the same taxpayer in the preceding assessment ye...
Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Page of 4896
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 97907 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Bangalore addressed unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, focusing on the credibility of earlier withdrawals as a source for redeposits. The Tribunal examined fund flow and cash flow statements, presuming cash availability for redeposit. The assessee deposited sums during demonetization, providing bank account details, rent agreements, and rental income confirmation. The assessee explained using earlier withdrawals and tenant payments for redeposits, supported by the case of S.R. Venkataratnam. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing credit for cash withdrawals and rental income towards bank deposits, deleting the addition for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
The ITAT Bangalore addressed unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, focusing on the credibility of earlier withdrawals as a source for redeposits. The Tribunal examined fund flow and cash flow statements, presuming cash availability for redeposit. The assessee deposited sums during demonetization, providing bank account details, rent agreements, and rental income confirmation. The assessee explained using earlier withdrawals and tenant payments for redeposits, supported by the case of S.R. Venkataratnam. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing credit for cash withdrawals and rental income towards bank deposits, deleting the addition for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4896 
