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 allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made under section 69A regarding cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes during demonetization period. The assessee, proprietor of petroleum products business, deposited cash from 24.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. ITAT held that despite regulatory ambiguity during demonetization transition period until 31.12.2016, the source explanation for cash deposits cannot be rejected merely because assessee accepted SBNs in technical violation of government notifications, particularly when the AO did not dispute that assessee made unaccounted cash deposits. Following precedent in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., ITAT concluded that addition under section 69A was unjustified and set aside CIT(A)'s order confirming the assessment.
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made under section 69A regarding cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes during demonetization period. The assessee, proprietor of petroleum products business, deposited cash from 24.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. ITAT held that despite regulatory ambiguity during demonetization transition period until 31.12.2016, the source explanation for cash deposits cannot be rejected merely because assessee accepted SBNs in technical violation of government notifications, particularly when the AO did not dispute that assessee made unaccounted cash deposits. Following precedent in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., ITAT concluded that addition under section 69A was unjustified and set aside CIT(A)'s order confirming the assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
