<?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 (6) TMI 901 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772788</link>
    <description>Tribunal partially allowed the appeal involving cash deposits during demonetization. The Rs. 28,80,000 addition was reduced to Rs. 3,88,000, reflecting insufficient evidence of cash source. The Tribunal rejected retrospective application of section 115BBE, limiting its scope to transactions after 01.04.2017. Despite 48-day delay in filing, the appeal was heard on merits, emphasizing procedural fairness and substantial justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 901 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772788</link>
      <description>Tribunal partially allowed the appeal involving cash deposits during demonetization. The Rs. 28,80,000 addition was reduced to Rs. 3,88,000, reflecting insufficient evidence of cash source. The Tribunal rejected retrospective application of section 115BBE, limiting its scope to transactions after 01.04.2017. Despite 48-day delay in filing, the appeal was heard on merits, emphasizing procedural fairness and substantial justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>