Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 69A with reference to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee failed to establish the source of these deposits into a bank account, contrary to RBI and Government directives. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the dhall mill business, had consistent cash sales with no abnormal increase during demonetization. The assessee provided evidence of cash on hand before demonetization and claimed to have received demonetized currency from customers post the specified date. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was genuine and acceptable, considering the nature of the business and submitted evidence. The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not duly considering the relevant submissions, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
