https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777789 ITAT (Hyderabad) upheld AO and CIT(A)'s additions under s. 68, ruling that the assessee failed to prove employment or substantiate cash deposits as sale proceeds of two firms. The assessee did not produce credible evidence of employment, employee records, or convincing linkage between firm transactions and the bank credits; isolated bank entries were insufficient. Consequently the tribunal treated the bank credits, including cash deposits, as unexplained cash credits and confirmed additions, decision against the assessee. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2025 08:10:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777789 ITAT (Hyderabad) upheld AO and CIT(A)'s additions under s. 68, ruling that the assessee failed to prove employment or substantiate cash deposits as sale proceeds of two firms. The assessee did not produce credible evidence of employment, employee records, or convincing linkage between firm transactions and the bank credits; isolated bank entries were insufficient. Consequently the tribunal treated the bank credits, including cash deposits, as unexplained cash credits and confirmed additions, decision against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777789