<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1815 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469642</link>
    <description>Cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation were explained as business receipts from fireworks sales, supported by books of account, audited financial statements, sales details, debtor particulars, stock position, and GST/VAT returns. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer accepted part of the deposits but rejected the balance mainly for lack of customer confirmations and adverse enquiry, without producing contrary material or pointing to any defect in the books. It also observed that taxing the deposits again would amount to double taxation of the same turnover. On that reasoning, the section 69A addition was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:57:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1815 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469642</link>
      <description>Cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation were explained as business receipts from fireworks sales, supported by books of account, audited financial statements, sales details, debtor particulars, stock position, and GST/VAT returns. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer accepted part of the deposits but rejected the balance mainly for lack of customer confirmations and adverse enquiry, without producing contrary material or pointing to any defect in the books. It also observed that taxing the deposits again would amount to double taxation of the same turnover. On that reasoning, the section 69A addition was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>