Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
