https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458846 Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetization was held not illegal for the relevant period because cessation of liability did not bar transactions until the appointed date; consequence: acceptance was lawful. The tribunal rejected additions under the unexplained investment doctrine where transactions were recorded in books and supported by sales records; consequence: Section 69 style additions were disallowed. The assessee's explanation that deposits were sales proceeds was accepted as consistent with historical cash flows and corroborated by records. CBDT guidance on analysing business models and cash patterns supported requiring concrete evidence rather than assumptions. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Feb 2026 18:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458846 Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetization was held not illegal for the relevant period because cessation of liability did not bar transactions until the appointed date; consequence: acceptance was lawful. The tribunal rejected additions under the unexplained investment doctrine where transactions were recorded in books and supported by sales records; consequence: Section 69 style additions were disallowed. The assessee's explanation that deposits were sales proceeds was accepted as consistent with historical cash flows and corroborated by records. CBDT guidance on analysing business models and cash patterns supported requiring concrete evidence rather than assumptions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458846