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 upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE regarding unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee successfully demonstrated that cash deposits originated from legitimate sales recorded in books of accounts and already subjected to taxation. The tribunal noted that only 17.50% of pre-demonetization stock was sold on 08.11.2016, rejecting AO's allegations of abnormal sales as unsupported by evidence. ITAT emphasized that additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or conjecture, particularly when cash from sales was properly recorded in books. Double taxation being impermissible, s.69A provisions were deemed inapplicable as the source of deposits was adequately explained and documented.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE regarding unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee successfully demonstrated that cash deposits originated from legitimate sales recorded in books of accounts and already subjected to taxation. The tribunal noted that only 17.50% of pre-demonetization stock was sold on 08.11.2016, rejecting AO's allegations of abnormal sales as unsupported by evidence. ITAT emphasized that additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or conjecture, particularly when cash from sales was properly recorded in books. Double taxation being impermissible, s.69A provisions were deemed inapplicable as the source of deposits was adequately explained and documented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.