<?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 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775938</link>
    <description>The ITAT Lucknow upheld the deletion of additions under section 69A relating to cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account. The CIT(A) relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that unexplained receipts can be treated as income. However, since the assessee satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the deposits, the additions made by the AO and initially sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775938</link>
      <description>The ITAT Lucknow upheld the deletion of additions under section 69A relating to cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account. The CIT(A) relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that unexplained receipts can be treated as income. However, since the assessee satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the deposits, the additions made by the AO and initially sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>