https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421182 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing and proceeding with the hearing. It deemed the reassessment invalid, as the reasons for reopening did not align with the law. The addition of cash deposit as income was rejected, considering the source proven by the assessee. Compliance with section 44AD was upheld, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing proper justification and compliance with the law. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:54:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421182 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing and proceeding with the hearing. It deemed the reassessment invalid, as the reasons for reopening did not align with the law. The addition of cash deposit as income was rejected, considering the source proven by the assessee. Compliance with section 44AD was upheld, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing proper justification and compliance with the law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421182