Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT analyzed cash deposit during demonetization, finding no unexplained income. Assessee declared total sales of Rs. 49,03,470/- including cash sales of Rs. 30,25,930/-, with VAT returns matching ITR declarations. Independent VAT authorities confirmed no errors. Cash deposited originated from legitimate sales proceeds existing prior to demonetization announcement. Following precedent in similar cases, ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A, rejecting tax authorities' conjecture of undisclosed income. Tribunal ruled in favor of assessee, holding that taxing same income twice would be improper and unsupported by evidence.
ITAT analyzed cash deposit during demonetization, finding no unexplained income. Assessee declared total sales of Rs. 49,03,470/- including cash sales of Rs. 30,25,930/-, with VAT returns matching ITR declarations. Independent VAT authorities confirmed no errors. Cash deposited originated from legitimate sales proceeds existing prior to demonetization announcement. Following precedent in similar cases, ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A, rejecting tax authorities' conjecture of undisclosed income. Tribunal ruled in favor of assessee, holding that taxing same income twice would be improper and unsupported by evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
