Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.