https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464908 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal. Relying on Agson Global precedent of Del HC, it held that cash deposits during the demonetization period were supported by recorded cash sales, comparable cash deposit patterns, and consistent GP ratios, with no evidence of bogus sales or fictitious transactions; the addition as unexplained cash credit was deleted. On deduction under s. 80JJAA, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, noting Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was e-filed before the return, the amended provisions on eligible employees were correctly applied, and the AO's inference on employee numbers was incorrect. Deduction under s. 80JJAA was sustained in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464908 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal. Relying on Agson Global precedent of Del HC, it held that cash deposits during the demonetization period were supported by recorded cash sales, comparable cash deposit patterns, and consistent GP ratios, with no evidence of bogus sales or fictitious transactions; the addition as unexplained cash credit was deleted. On deduction under s. 80JJAA, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, noting Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was e-filed before the return, the amended provisions on eligible employees were correctly applied, and the AO's inference on employee numbers was incorrect. Deduction under s. 80JJAA was sustained in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464908