<?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 731 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783191</link>
    <description>ITAT Rajkot-AT partly allowed assessee&#039;s appeal in respect of additions on cash deposits during demonetization and non-demonetization periods. The Tribunal held that the deposits were linked to regular business activities involving sale of mobile recharge vouchers and mobile phones, where profit margins vary. Adopting a holistic approach, it rejected both the full addition and complete deletion, and directed estimation of income by applying a net profit rate of 6% on the cash deposits to address documentary inconsistencies and prevent revenue leakage. Further, it held that tax should be levied at normal rates, not under s.115BBE, as income arose from business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 731 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783191</link>
      <description>ITAT Rajkot-AT partly allowed assessee&#039;s appeal in respect of additions on cash deposits during demonetization and non-demonetization periods. The Tribunal held that the deposits were linked to regular business activities involving sale of mobile recharge vouchers and mobile phones, where profit margins vary. Adopting a holistic approach, it rejected both the full addition and complete deletion, and directed estimation of income by applying a net profit rate of 6% on the cash deposits to address documentary inconsistencies and prevent revenue leakage. Further, it held that tax should be levied at normal rates, not under s.115BBE, as income arose from business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>