<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (6) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63657</link>
    <description>High-denomination notes declared on demonetisation were not treated as undisclosed income where the taxpayer&#039;s explanation was supported by the cash-based nature of the business, prior dealings in such notes and absence of a substantial increase in assets. The taxpayer, who did not maintain books or purchase vouchers, explained that smaller-denomination cash received in business was exchanged through banks for higher-denomination notes. Although specific bank conversion details were unavailable, the reported reasoning treated the explanation as credible in light of past bank deposits of similar notes and the taxpayer&#039;s established business practices. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:34:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63657</link>
      <description>High-denomination notes declared on demonetisation were not treated as undisclosed income where the taxpayer&#039;s explanation was supported by the cash-based nature of the business, prior dealings in such notes and absence of a substantial increase in assets. The taxpayer, who did not maintain books or purchase vouchers, explained that smaller-denomination cash received in business was exchanged through banks for higher-denomination notes. Although specific bank conversion details were unavailable, the reported reasoning treated the explanation as credible in light of past bank deposits of similar notes and the taxpayer&#039;s established business practices. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>