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...
ITAT ruled in favor of the taxpayer regarding disputed cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee had properly recorded cash sales in accounting books and provided requisite documentation supporting the transactions. While AO had partially accepted sales records, certain deposits made on 13.11.2016 were questioned solely due to timing during demonetization. Given that complete sales documentation was maintained and verified through standard procedures, ITAT found no justification for treating these recorded sales as unexplained cash deposits under s.68. The addition made by AO was accordingly deleted, as differential treatment of same category of transactions based merely on deposit timing was deemed inappropriate.
ITAT ruled in favor of the taxpayer regarding disputed cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee had properly recorded cash sales in accounting books and provided requisite documentation supporting the transactions. While AO had partially accepted sales records, certain deposits made on 13.11.2016 were questioned solely due to timing during demonetization. Given that complete sales documentation was maintained and verified through standard procedures, ITAT found no justification for treating these recorded sales as unexplained cash deposits under s.68. The addition made by AO was accordingly deleted, as differential treatment of same category of transactions based merely on deposit timing was deemed inappropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
