https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448392 ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)'s decision deleting addition u/s 68 regarding cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee, a gem trader, explained cash retention for property purchase and piecemeal deposits due to banking constraints and security concerns post-demonetization. AO's doubts about unidentified buyers and sales below Rs. 2 lakh were deemed baseless without concrete evidence of bogus transactions. ITAT found AO relied on surmises without proper inquiry or rejecting books under section 145(3). Additionally, interest income was correctly classified as business income rather than other sources since borrowings and advances were systematic business activities. Both additions deleted in assessee's favor. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448392 ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)'s decision deleting addition u/s 68 regarding cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee, a gem trader, explained cash retention for property purchase and piecemeal deposits due to banking constraints and security concerns post-demonetization. AO's doubts about unidentified buyers and sales below Rs. 2 lakh were deemed baseless without concrete evidence of bogus transactions. ITAT found AO relied on surmises without proper inquiry or rejecting books under section 145(3). Additionally, interest income was correctly classified as business income rather than other sources since borrowings and advances were systematic business activities. Both additions deleted in assessee's favor. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448392