Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
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 4915 
