https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457890 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE involving demonetization deposits. Assessee had maintained audited books showing steady cash accumulation from April 2016, reaching maximum Rs. 4.27 crores by October 2016, before demonetization announcement. CIT(A) found receipts were recorded as debtor payments from legitimate sales transactions, undisputed by Revenue. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision that deposits made within government's prescribed timeframe (November 8 to December 31, 2016) cannot be treated as unexplained credits when cash sources were properly documented and verified. en-us Fri, 19 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:51:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457890 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE involving demonetization deposits. Assessee had maintained audited books showing steady cash accumulation from April 2016, reaching maximum Rs. 4.27 crores by October 2016, before demonetization announcement. CIT(A) found receipts were recorded as debtor payments from legitimate sales transactions, undisputed by Revenue. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision that deposits made within government's prescribed timeframe (November 8 to December 31, 2016) cannot be treated as unexplained credits when cash sources were properly documented and verified. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457890