https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785179 Dispute concerns cash deposits during the demonetization period and whether sources were satisfactorily explained for tax assessment under unexplained cash provisions. The assessee produced evidence of agricultural loans, fixed deposit maturities and past savings as sources for deposits, and bank statements showing withdrawals and redeposits; these explanations were accepted to the extent they could be substantiated. The assessee failed to fully account for personal expenses and drawings arising from cash withdrawals, and therefore a deemed addition was sustained by applying a net profit rate of 10% on the unexplained cash deposits, producing a partial allowance of the challenge. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jan 2026 07:37:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785179 Dispute concerns cash deposits during the demonetization period and whether sources were satisfactorily explained for tax assessment under unexplained cash provisions. The assessee produced evidence of agricultural loans, fixed deposit maturities and past savings as sources for deposits, and bank statements showing withdrawals and redeposits; these explanations were accepted to the extent they could be substantiated. The assessee failed to fully account for personal expenses and drawings arising from cash withdrawals, and therefore a deemed addition was sustained by applying a net profit rate of 10% on the unexplained cash deposits, producing a partial allowance of the challenge. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785179