Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.