Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits...
ITAT addressed cash deposits during demonetization. Found lack of evidence for certain expenses. Ruled Section 115BBE for higher rate of tax not retroactive.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal noted the assessee's agricultural income and expenses but found insufficient evidence of various expenses. Adjusting claimed expenses, a portion of the unexplained cash remained unexplained. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal ruled that Section 115BBE couldn't be applied retroactively as it came into force after the search. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held the addition u/s 115BBE was unsustainable. Therefore, Section 115BBE was deemed inapplicable in the case, favoring the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal noted the assessee's agricultural income and expenses but found insufficient evidence of various expenses. Adjusting claimed expenses, a portion of the unexplained cash remained unexplained. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal ruled that Section 115BBE couldn't be applied retroactively as it came into force after the search. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held the addition u/s 115BBE was unsustainable. Therefore, Section 115BBE was deemed inapplicable in the case, favoring the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
