<?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 (7) TMI 1359 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775291</link>
    <description>Cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account were treated as unexplained, but the assessee supported the deposits with prior cash withdrawals and an opening cash balance shown in the cash flow statement. The lower authorities rejected the explanation mainly because of the gap in timing and the stated lack of purpose for the withdrawals, yet the explanation was not effectively disproved. As the availability of cash was not shown to be untenable on the record, the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:29:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1359 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775291</link>
      <description>Cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account were treated as unexplained, but the assessee supported the deposits with prior cash withdrawals and an opening cash balance shown in the cash flow statement. The lower authorities rejected the explanation mainly because of the gap in timing and the stated lack of purpose for the withdrawals, yet the explanation was not effectively disproved. As the availability of cash was not shown to be untenable on the record, the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>