<?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 (11) TMI 1314 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781846</link>
    <description>ITAT Rajkot-AT upheld only a limited addition on cash deposits made during demonetization. The assessee, a small milk trader, had deposited cash in bank and post office accounts. ITAT rejected the claimed opening cash balance and treated the cash book as self-serving, as no returns had been filed and no reliable sales details were produced. However, recognizing that deposits were from the milk business and that a small assessee need not maintain formal books, ITAT estimated profit at 10% of the cash deposits, sustaining Rs. 74,800 as taxable business income at normal rates and held that s.115BBE did not apply, with no precedential value for other years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1314 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781846</link>
      <description>ITAT Rajkot-AT upheld only a limited addition on cash deposits made during demonetization. The assessee, a small milk trader, had deposited cash in bank and post office accounts. ITAT rejected the claimed opening cash balance and treated the cash book as self-serving, as no returns had been filed and no reliable sales details were produced. However, recognizing that deposits were from the milk business and that a small assessee need not maintain formal books, ITAT estimated profit at 10% of the cash deposits, sustaining Rs. 74,800 as taxable business income at normal rates and held that s.115BBE did not apply, with no precedential value for other years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>