<?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>2022 (6) TMI 151 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423310</link>
    <description>Cash collections from members recorded in the books and linked to an identified business source could not be treated as unexplained under section 68 merely because they consisted of specified bank notes collected during demonetisation. The Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation that the deposits arose in the ordinary course of business, followed its earlier decision on identical facts, and held that use of demonetised notes alone did not make the receipts unexplained. The objection based on RBI restrictions also failed on the facts, as the collections were made before the appointed date under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, so the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 151 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423310</link>
      <description>Cash collections from members recorded in the books and linked to an identified business source could not be treated as unexplained under section 68 merely because they consisted of specified bank notes collected during demonetisation. The Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation that the deposits arose in the ordinary course of business, followed its earlier decision on identical facts, and held that use of demonetised notes alone did not make the receipts unexplained. The objection based on RBI restrictions also failed on the facts, as the collections were made before the appointed date under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, so the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>