https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755562 The ITAT Delhi ruled against the assessee on two grounds while allowing partial relief on a third. Regarding cash purchases exceeding INR 20,000 under section 40A(3), the Tribunal held that seller confirmation and TCS deduction alone cannot justify cash payments without proving compelling commercial expediency. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate no alternative payment method existed. For unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts, the Tribunal affirmed the addition, noting the assessee's failure to prove the source of deposits. However, regarding license fee paid to Excise Department, the matter was remanded to AO for verification of payment evidence. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:19:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755562 The ITAT Delhi ruled against the assessee on two grounds while allowing partial relief on a third. Regarding cash purchases exceeding INR 20,000 under section 40A(3), the Tribunal held that seller confirmation and TCS deduction alone cannot justify cash payments without proving compelling commercial expediency. The addition was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate no alternative payment method existed. For unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts, the Tribunal affirmed the addition, noting the assessee's failure to prove the source of deposits. However, regarding license fee paid to Excise Department, the matter was remanded to AO for verification of payment evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755562