Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Deposits by the assessee in bank account during demonetization period were not unexplained. Section 69A is inapplicable as there were proper entries for cash sales, cash balance, and deposits in assessee's books of accounts. Cash sales against issued cash memos and immediate delivery cannot be considered unexplained money. Authorities did not find defects in books or abnormal increase in cash sales/balance before demonetization. Section 115BBE, applicable on income u/ss 68-69D, is inapplicable since source of cash deposits is business income. Assessee discharged initial burden by explaining source as cash sales credited in books, supported by evidence. Onus shifted to department to prove deposits represent undisclosed income, which department failed. Relying on Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation, ITAT allowed assessee's ground against CIT(A)'s findings.
Deposits by the assessee in bank account during demonetization period were not unexplained. Section 69A is inapplicable as there were proper entries for cash sales, cash balance, and deposits in assessee's books of accounts. Cash sales against issued cash memos and immediate delivery cannot be considered unexplained money. Authorities did not find defects in books or abnormal increase in cash sales/balance before demonetization. Section 115BBE, applicable on income u/ss 68-69D, is inapplicable since source of cash deposits is business income. Assessee discharged initial burden by explaining source as cash sales credited in books, supported by evidence. Onus shifted to department to prove deposits represent undisclosed income, which department failed. Relying on Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation, ITAT allowed assessee's ground against CIT(A)'s findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
