https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343181 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, rejecting the Revenue's appeal in its entirety. The appellant successfully demonstrated the legitimate source of unexplained cash credits and the eligibility for additional depreciation on machinery used for crimping yarn, based on relevant case laws and precedents. The tribunal emphasized the Assessing Officer's overextension of the burden under Section 68 and clarified that crimping yarn qualifies as a manufacturing activity, in line with a Bombay High Court decision and a CBDT Circular. en-us Thu, 18 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 May 2017 09:03:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343181 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, rejecting the Revenue's appeal in its entirety. The appellant successfully demonstrated the legitimate source of unexplained cash credits and the eligibility for additional depreciation on machinery used for crimping yarn, based on relevant case laws and precedents. The tribunal emphasized the Assessing Officer's overextension of the burden under Section 68 and clarified that crimping yarn qualifies as a manufacturing activity, in line with a Bombay High Court decision and a CBDT Circular. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343181