https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787150 Rejection of books of account was upheld where manual books were not produced and expenditures lacked support, permitting the AO's income estimation. Addition of large demonetisation-period cash deposits as unexplained was deleted because bank deposits were reflected in the assessee's accounting records, matched with business receipts and utilisation, and thus did not satisfy the test for unexplained money. Disallowance of a claimed deduction under the investment deduction provision was confirmed for want of documentary proof. Overall effect: books rejection and deduction disallowance sustained; unexplained-deposits addition deleted. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:36:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787150 Rejection of books of account was upheld where manual books were not produced and expenditures lacked support, permitting the AO's income estimation. Addition of large demonetisation-period cash deposits as unexplained was deleted because bank deposits were reflected in the assessee's accounting records, matched with business receipts and utilisation, and thus did not satisfy the test for unexplained money. Disallowance of a claimed deduction under the investment deduction provision was confirmed for want of documentary proof. Overall effect: books rejection and deduction disallowance sustained; unexplained-deposits addition deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787150