Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The assessee, engaged in trading gold, silver, and diamond jewelry, witnessed a substantial increase in cash sales during October and the first week of November 2016 due to Dussehra and Diwali festivals. After demonetization on November 8, 2016, jewelers opened shutters and made substantial sales from 8:30 PM to 12:00 AM. The assessee filed purchase and sale registers, stock summary, returns, and explained the cash deposit, discharging the onus of proving genuineness. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the increase in cash sales was due to festival occasions, and people chose to purchase jewelry with cash. Consequently, the addition u/s 69A was unjustified, and the decision favored the assessee.
The assessee, engaged in trading gold, silver, and diamond jewelry, witnessed a substantial increase in cash sales during October and the first week of November 2016 due to Dussehra and Diwali festivals. After demonetization on November 8, 2016, jewelers opened shutters and made substantial sales from 8:30 PM to 12:00 AM. The assessee filed purchase and sale registers, stock summary, returns, and explained the cash deposit, discharging the onus of proving genuineness. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the increase in cash sales was due to festival occasions, and people chose to purchase jewelry with cash. Consequently, the addition u/s 69A was unjustified, and the decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
