Tag: demonetisation

Addition u/s 69A confirmed as alleged capital contribution by partners was deposited in bank account of assessee not in account of partnership firm In a recent judgment, Andhra Pradesh High Court confirmed addition under section 69A of Income Tax Act as the alleged capital contribution by the partners …

ITAT refuses to accept opening cash as source of cash deposit as assessee was not subject to audit and cash book was just a self-servicing document In a recent judgment, ITAT Rajkot has declined to accept the opening cash as source of cash deposit holding that assessee was …

Entire amount of undisclosed money cannot be treated as income and only estimated profit embedded in these transactions may only be taxed.  In a recent judgment, Rajkot ITAT held that entire amount of undisclosed money cannot be treated as income and only estimated profit embedded in these transactions …

There is no legal provision which compels a person to necessarily deposit/invest the cash available in hand – ITAT In A recent judgment, ITAT Jabalpur has held that there is no legal provision which compels a person to necessarily deposit/invest the cash available in hand in bank. Keeping …

Addition u/s 68 deleted as time gap between cash withdrawal and cash deposit into bank account was similar to the preceding year, establishing it was a normal feature of the assessee’s business. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld deletion of addition u/s 68 towards cash …

Addition 69A deleted for cash deposit in bank during demonetisation period as the AO did not follow source specific general verification guidelines of CBDT. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh has deleted addition 69A for unexplained cash deposit in bank during demonetisation period as the …

It is well-settled that once the source of cash is explained to be business receipts already accounted for and taxed, addition u/s 68 is unwarranted – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Surat has deleted addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding that …

Merely because of no response to notice u/s 133(6) in the manner the AO expected not a basis for making additions – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Delhi held that merely because bank not responded to notice issued u/s 133(6) in the manner the AO expected cannot …

ITAT deleted addition for cash deposit on account of the statement given by the Prime Minister, press statement and CBDT SOP In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained on account of the statement given by the Prime Minister, press statement …

Addition of unexplained investment upheld when assessee was not in the category of the persons permitted to accept the demonetised currency.  In a recent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Petition challenging addition as unexplained investment towards deposit of demonetised currency in bank as after demonetisation, the assessee …