https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751972 The ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee who deposited cash during the 2016 demonetization period. The AO had made additions under section 69A read with section 115BBE, claiming undisclosed income as the assessee failed to provide customer identities for cash sales made on November 8, 2016. The Tribunal held that since cash sales were recorded in books and offered for taxation, re-adding them would constitute impermissible double taxation. The AO's allegations lacked concrete evidence and were based on mere suspicion. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance on loans to the assessee's son, finding no established nexus between borrowed funds and loans granted. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751972 The ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee who deposited cash during the 2016 demonetization period. The AO had made additions under section 69A read with section 115BBE, claiming undisclosed income as the assessee failed to provide customer identities for cash sales made on November 8, 2016. The Tribunal held that since cash sales were recorded in books and offered for taxation, re-adding them would constitute impermissible double taxation. The AO's allegations lacked concrete evidence and were based on mere suspicion. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance on loans to the assessee's son, finding no established nexus between borrowed funds and loans granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751972