https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777247 ITAT held that additions under s.68 treating demonetization-period cash deposits as unexplained cash credits were unwarranted: the AO had not rejected the books, cash sales were recorded in regular books and corroborated by VAT returns, and no independent evidence supported the AO's conclusion of sham transactions, so CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. As to s.40A(3), the Tribunal sustained deletion of disallowance for cash purchases made on Sunday (customer insistence and holiday), while upholding disallowances for purchases on other non-holiday days where explanations and auditor variances were deficient. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777247 ITAT held that additions under s.68 treating demonetization-period cash deposits as unexplained cash credits were unwarranted: the AO had not rejected the books, cash sales were recorded in regular books and corroborated by VAT returns, and no independent evidence supported the AO's conclusion of sham transactions, so CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. As to s.40A(3), the Tribunal sustained deletion of disallowance for cash purchases made on Sunday (customer insistence and holiday), while upholding disallowances for purchases on other non-holiday days where explanations and auditor variances were deficient. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777247