<?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 (8) TMI 1757 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471021</link>
    <description>Addition for alleged unexplained bank deposits under Section 69A was unsustainable because the discrepancy arose from comparing full-year deposits with figures considered only up to 22 January 2018. Bank records showed that deposits exceeded the departmental insight information and represented business receipts later remitted for telecom recharges. No independent verification established that transactions in the relevant bank account fell outside regular business receipts. Deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 18:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1757 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471021</link>
      <description>Addition for alleged unexplained bank deposits under Section 69A was unsustainable because the discrepancy arose from comparing full-year deposits with figures considered only up to 22 January 2018. Bank records showed that deposits exceeded the departmental insight information and represented business receipts later remitted for telecom recharges. No independent verification established that transactions in the relevant bank account fell outside regular business receipts. Deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>