<?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 (2) TMI 1239 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463482</link>
    <description>Cash sales supported by audited books, stock records, sale invoices and VAT returns were not rejected merely because complete buyer particulars were absent on every invoice, so rejection of books under section 145(3) was unwarranted. The cash deposits were treated as sale proceeds already recorded in the books, so addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68 failed. Amounts reflected in seized material but already disclosed as additional business income could not be re-characterised as unexplained money under section 69A without a distinct basis, so that addition also failed. Once the substantive additions did not survive, section 115BBE could not be applied independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2025 10:00:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=847826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1239 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463482</link>
      <description>Cash sales supported by audited books, stock records, sale invoices and VAT returns were not rejected merely because complete buyer particulars were absent on every invoice, so rejection of books under section 145(3) was unwarranted. The cash deposits were treated as sale proceeds already recorded in the books, so addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68 failed. Amounts reflected in seized material but already disclosed as additional business income could not be re-characterised as unexplained money under section 69A without a distinct basis, so that addition also failed. Once the substantive additions did not survive, section 115BBE could not be applied independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>