<?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 604 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770332</link>
    <description>HC allowed taxpayer&#039;s appeal challenging addition of Rs. 2,29,500/- under section 69A of Income Tax Act. Court held that cash deposits in demonetized currency notes during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained income when business receipts are properly recorded and accepted by tax authorities. Department failed to provide evidence of suspicious sources, and mere deposit of SBNs does not automatically imply undisclosed income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 09:12:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 604 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770332</link>
      <description>HC allowed taxpayer&#039;s appeal challenging addition of Rs. 2,29,500/- under section 69A of Income Tax Act. Court held that cash deposits in demonetized currency notes during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained income when business receipts are properly recorded and accepted by tax authorities. Department failed to provide evidence of suspicious sources, and mere deposit of SBNs does not automatically imply undisclosed income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>