<?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>2026 (4) TMI 481 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789412</link>
    <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were accepted as explained where the assessee produced a cash book and quantitative stock details showing that the deposits arose from recorded cash sales, the books were not rejected, and no defect was found in the stock records; an estimated sales basis could not displace the maintained accounts or tax the same turnover again as unexplained income. Proceeds from sale of petty fixed assets were also accepted where the reduction was reflected in the fixed asset schedule, no depreciation had been claimed, and the absence of separate bills did not by itself justify an adverse inference. Both additions were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 481 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789412</link>
      <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were accepted as explained where the assessee produced a cash book and quantitative stock details showing that the deposits arose from recorded cash sales, the books were not rejected, and no defect was found in the stock records; an estimated sales basis could not displace the maintained accounts or tax the same turnover again as unexplained income. Proceeds from sale of petty fixed assets were also accepted where the reduction was reflected in the fixed asset schedule, no depreciation had been claimed, and the absence of separate bills did not by itself justify an adverse inference. Both additions were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>