<?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 1943 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470000</link>
    <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were explained through prior disclosures of agricultural and tuition income and a brother&#039;s confirmation of the alleged gift, so the assessee was held to have discharged the burden of proving the ownership and source of the cash. On that evidence, the explanation for the bank deposits could not be rejected, and the addition under section 69A was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:03:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1943 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470000</link>
      <description>Cash deposits during the demonetisation period were explained through prior disclosures of agricultural and tuition income and a brother&#039;s confirmation of the alleged gift, so the assessee was held to have discharged the burden of proving the ownership and source of the cash. On that evidence, the explanation for the bank deposits could not be rejected, and the addition under section 69A was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>