https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778140 ITAT MUMBAI set aside the addition under s.68, holding that the firm's sales were fully disclosed with receipts realized through cash and bank, books were not rejected, and supporting documents (VAT returns, stock register) were credible. Cash sales were only 4.19% of turnover and opening cash, purchases and stock supported the sales, so no undue benefit was derived. The Tribunal relied on applicable precedent that documentary evidence not rebutted or rejected cannot alone justify an addition merely because transactions occurred during the demonetisation period. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2025 08:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778140 ITAT MUMBAI set aside the addition under s.68, holding that the firm's sales were fully disclosed with receipts realized through cash and bank, books were not rejected, and supporting documents (VAT returns, stock register) were credible. Cash sales were only 4.19% of turnover and opening cash, purchases and stock supported the sales, so no undue benefit was derived. The Tribunal relied on applicable precedent that documentary evidence not rebutted or rejected cannot alone justify an addition merely because transactions occurred during the demonetisation period. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778140