<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 209 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769937</link>
    <description>Additions for cash deposits treated as unexplained money and for repayment of unsecured loans treated as unexplained credits were deleted because the assessee supported its explanation with books of account, purchase and sales records, cash flow details, audit report, loan confirmations, bank statements, PAN details and return particulars. The cash deposits were traced to opening cash in hand and cash sales during the relevant period, while the loan repayments were shown to have been made through banking channels and backed by documentary evidence. On that basis, the additions under section 69A and section 68 were found to rest on assumptions rather than proper appreciation of the record, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 209 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769937</link>
      <description>Additions for cash deposits treated as unexplained money and for repayment of unsecured loans treated as unexplained credits were deleted because the assessee supported its explanation with books of account, purchase and sales records, cash flow details, audit report, loan confirmations, bank statements, PAN details and return particulars. The cash deposits were traced to opening cash in hand and cash sales during the relevant period, while the loan repayments were shown to have been made through banking channels and backed by documentary evidence. On that basis, the additions under section 69A and section 68 were found to rest on assumptions rather than proper appreciation of the record, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>