Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT sustained the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. The Tribunal held that additions disallowing job-work expenses as alleged sham transactions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) because the assessee produced plausible independent evidence and the Revenue failed to rebut it; those disallowances were therefore not sustained. The Tribunal directed deletion of additions treating demonetization cash deposits as unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, finding cash sales and offered profits accepted and that invoking s.68 would result in impermissible double taxation. Claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA was remitted to the AO for verification and allowance if found in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.