<?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 1954 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470023</link>
    <description>Cash deposits made during the demonetisation period should not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Sections 68 and 115BBE where the assessee demonstrates that they arose from recorded business sales. The relevant sales were entered in audited books, credited to the profit and loss account, reported in VAT returns, and supported by sufficient cash balance. In the absence of defects in the books, discrepancies in specific sale bills, or evidence that the sales were bogus, statistical comparisons with earlier-year sales were insufficient to displace the records. Because the sales receipts had already been offered to tax, assessing the corresponding deposits again as unexplained cash would result in impermissible double taxation. The addition was therefore described as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 18:58:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1954 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470023</link>
      <description>Cash deposits made during the demonetisation period should not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Sections 68 and 115BBE where the assessee demonstrates that they arose from recorded business sales. The relevant sales were entered in audited books, credited to the profit and loss account, reported in VAT returns, and supported by sufficient cash balance. In the absence of defects in the books, discrepancies in specific sale bills, or evidence that the sales were bogus, statistical comparisons with earlier-year sales were insufficient to displace the records. Because the sales receipts had already been offered to tax, assessing the corresponding deposits again as unexplained cash would result in impermissible double taxation. The addition was therefore described as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>