<?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 (12) TMI 1684 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465680</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether cash deposits in bank accounts could be treated as unexplained credits under s.68 and taxed under s.115BBE on an estimated basis (including a 1/3rd estimation or bank-wise approach) despite the assessee producing evidence that the deposits arose from regular cash sales. The ITAT held that the tax authorities were required to examine each deposit entry on merits against the supporting material and could not sustain an addition on mere estimation without identifying deposits remaining unexplained. As the assessee had explained the source with relevant evidence and the authorities failed to rebut it through entry-wise scrutiny, the addition was held unsustainable and was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:37:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1684 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465680</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether cash deposits in bank accounts could be treated as unexplained credits under s.68 and taxed under s.115BBE on an estimated basis (including a 1/3rd estimation or bank-wise approach) despite the assessee producing evidence that the deposits arose from regular cash sales. The ITAT held that the tax authorities were required to examine each deposit entry on merits against the supporting material and could not sustain an addition on mere estimation without identifying deposits remaining unexplained. As the assessee had explained the source with relevant evidence and the authorities failed to rebut it through entry-wise scrutiny, the addition was held unsustainable and was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>