<?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 1411 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771139</link>
    <description>Unexplained cash deposits under s.68 r/w s.115BBE: the Tribunal held the assessee&#039;s explanation of the source could not be accepted for want of supporting evidence, yet the appellate finding that scrap-sale receipts were recorded in regular books required verification, especially since bank statements were not produced. The CIT(A)&#039;s order on this issue was set aside and the matter remanded to the AO to verify books/financials; if scrap-sale receipts are proved as recorded &quot;Direct Income&quot; and as the source of deposits, the AO must delete the addition. Alleged cash payment: the Tribunal found the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition despite the AO having issued a show-cause and considered materials. As the assessee pleaded management change and offered no substantiation, the issue was remanded for AO&#039;s reconsideration after furnishing evidences for rebuttal. Revenue&#039;s appeal allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=823139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1411 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771139</link>
      <description>Unexplained cash deposits under s.68 r/w s.115BBE: the Tribunal held the assessee&#039;s explanation of the source could not be accepted for want of supporting evidence, yet the appellate finding that scrap-sale receipts were recorded in regular books required verification, especially since bank statements were not produced. The CIT(A)&#039;s order on this issue was set aside and the matter remanded to the AO to verify books/financials; if scrap-sale receipts are proved as recorded &quot;Direct Income&quot; and as the source of deposits, the AO must delete the addition. Alleged cash payment: the Tribunal found the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition despite the AO having issued a show-cause and considered materials. As the assessee pleaded management change and offered no substantiation, the issue was remanded for AO&#039;s reconsideration after furnishing evidences for rebuttal. Revenue&#039;s appeal allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>