https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767018 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal in two matters. First, regarding additions under sections 68/69A for unexplained money during demonetization, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion finding that assessee adequately explained the source of specified bank notes through pre-demonetization cash withdrawals with supporting evidence. AO's selective questioning of few withdrawals without disproving assessee's explanation was deemed unreasonable. Second, concerning disallowance of reimbursement expenses totaling Rs. 1,07,24,039, the tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion noting that assessee, being a customs house agent in logistics business, provided ledger extracts supporting legitimate travel and transportation reimbursements to employees. AO's disallowance based on mere suspicion without identifying specific defects in audited books was rejected. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:32:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767018 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal in two matters. First, regarding additions under sections 68/69A for unexplained money during demonetization, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion finding that assessee adequately explained the source of specified bank notes through pre-demonetization cash withdrawals with supporting evidence. AO's selective questioning of few withdrawals without disproving assessee's explanation was deemed unreasonable. Second, concerning disallowance of reimbursement expenses totaling Rs. 1,07,24,039, the tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion noting that assessee, being a customs house agent in logistics business, provided ledger extracts supporting legitimate travel and transportation reimbursements to employees. AO's disallowance based on mere suspicion without identifying specific defects in audited books was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767018