<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1526 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464315</link>
    <description>ITAT reduced the addition under s.69A in respect of cash deposits made during demonetisation to a 20% disallowance, finding the AO unjustified in sustaining the entire deposit where earlier ITRs showed admitted agricultural income and the AO did not probe land area or farming activity; the AO was directed to restrict the addition to 20%. The assessee&#039;s legal contention against s.69A was not accepted for lack of supporting law. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:17:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1526 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464315</link>
      <description>ITAT reduced the addition under s.69A in respect of cash deposits made during demonetisation to a 20% disallowance, finding the AO unjustified in sustaining the entire deposit where earlier ITRs showed admitted agricultural income and the AO did not probe land area or farming activity; the AO was directed to restrict the addition to 20%. The assessee&#039;s legal contention against s.69A was not accepted for lack of supporting law. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>