Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
ITAT upheld deletion of additions under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE regarding cash deposits made during demonetization period. The taxpayer successfully demonstrated that deposits originated from legitimate cash sales recorded in books of accounts and verified by statutory authorities. ITAT found that cash generated through sales was properly credited in books and supported by TNVAT records and chartered accountant audit. The AO's allegations of abnormal sales patterns were rejected as based merely on suspicion without concrete evidence. Double taxation was deemed impermissible since sales were already reflected in accounts and offered for tax. The Tribunal concluded s.69A provisions were inapplicable as source of deposits was satisfactorily explained through documented business transactions.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE regarding cash deposits made during demonetization period. The taxpayer successfully demonstrated that deposits originated from legitimate cash sales recorded in books of accounts and verified by statutory authorities. ITAT found that cash generated through sales was properly credited in books and supported by TNVAT records and chartered accountant audit. The AO's allegations of abnormal sales patterns were rejected as based merely on suspicion without concrete evidence. Double taxation was deemed impermissible since sales were already reflected in accounts and offered for tax. The Tribunal concluded s.69A provisions were inapplicable as source of deposits was satisfactorily explained through documented business transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
