<?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 (6) TMI 535 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793154</link>
    <description>Cash deposits made during demonetisation were treated as recorded business receipts, not unexplained cash credits, where the assessee maintained audited books, the books were not rejected under section 145(3), and the deposits were reflected in the cash book. The assessee supported the receipts with customer details, cash book extracts and turnover data showing genuine seasonal fireworks sales. The Revenue did not prove the sales were bogus, backdated, unsupported by stock movement, or artificially inflated. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT demonetisation verification SOP required comparative analysis and enquiry into suspicious sales patterns, which was not adequately carried out. The section 68 addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 535 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793154</link>
      <description>Cash deposits made during demonetisation were treated as recorded business receipts, not unexplained cash credits, where the assessee maintained audited books, the books were not rejected under section 145(3), and the deposits were reflected in the cash book. The assessee supported the receipts with customer details, cash book extracts and turnover data showing genuine seasonal fireworks sales. The Revenue did not prove the sales were bogus, backdated, unsupported by stock movement, or artificially inflated. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT demonetisation verification SOP required comparative analysis and enquiry into suspicious sales patterns, which was not adequately carried out. The section 68 addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>