<?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 (12) TMI 281 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782741</link>
    <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were held to be explained where the assessee&#039;s trading record showed sufficient stock, cash sales and an available cash balance, and the assessment had relied on an unduly narrow view of the relevant period without examining the full-year business position. On those facts, the addition under section 68 was deleted and the consequential taxation under section 115BBE also failed. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 281 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782741</link>
      <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were held to be explained where the assessee&#039;s trading record showed sufficient stock, cash sales and an available cash balance, and the assessment had relied on an unduly narrow view of the relevant period without examining the full-year business position. On those facts, the addition under section 68 was deleted and the consequential taxation under section 115BBE also failed. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>