<?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>2025 (3) TMI 1758 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469367</link>
    <description>Cash deposits were held not taxable under section 69A where the assessee explained that the deposits came from an earlier cash withdrawal and that the wrong PAN had been given to the bank because of similar names. The appellate authority had not effectively verified the explanation or the supporting bank statements, and its order was found to be cryptic and lacking proper inquiry and reasons as required under sections 250(4) and 250(6). On that footing, the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 23:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1758 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469367</link>
      <description>Cash deposits were held not taxable under section 69A where the assessee explained that the deposits came from an earlier cash withdrawal and that the wrong PAN had been given to the bank because of similar names. The appellate authority had not effectively verified the explanation or the supporting bank statements, and its order was found to be cryptic and lacking proper inquiry and reasons as required under sections 250(4) and 250(6). On that footing, the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>