<?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 (5) TMI 317 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791115</link>
    <description>Cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation were analysed under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee claimed they were business sale proceeds. The deposits were supported by customer-wise details, bills, ledger extracts, audited accounts and VAT records, and the corresponding sales were already recorded in the books and return. As the revenue did not rebut the primary evidence or show defects in the books, stock records or turnover, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained credits. The absence of depositor PAN details and the use of specified bank notes were held insufficient, and the addition was deleted as it would amount to taxing the same trading receipt again.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 317 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791115</link>
      <description>Cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation were analysed under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee claimed they were business sale proceeds. The deposits were supported by customer-wise details, bills, ledger extracts, audited accounts and VAT records, and the corresponding sales were already recorded in the books and return. As the revenue did not rebut the primary evidence or show defects in the books, stock records or turnover, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained credits. The absence of depositor PAN details and the use of specified bank notes were held insufficient, and the addition was deleted as it would amount to taxing the same trading receipt again.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>