Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
