Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Highlights - Adv. Search
    Penalty Orders Under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A Quashed for Being Beyond Six-Month Limitation Period
    Ex Parte Order Set Aside for Unfair Trade Practices Due to No Show Cause Notice Under Article 14
    FEMA penalties reduced for unauthorized FDI remittances; individual fines moderated under Section 42 liability rules
    Extra Profit Share from Partnership Revaluation Not Taxable Under Section 28(iv); Reopening Without Valid Reasons Quashed
    Income from property sale taxed only once under Section 43CA; possession date key, valuation date irrelevant
    ITAT confirms principal-agent income, disallows additions under Sections 40A(3) & 37(1), directs profit recomputation
    Penalty upheld under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases; assessee must prove claims in income return
    Retention Money Included in Contract Revenue Under Section 43CB and ICDS-III for AY 2017-18 Confirmed
    Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Against Non-Earning Joint Owner Wife Quashed for AY 2021-22
    Penalty under Section 270A not imposed due to genuine dispute over taxability of IT service payments
    Additions on unaccounted cash and interest deleted for lack of evidence under Income Tax Act, AY 2012-13 and 2015-16 upheld
    Interest Income from Bank Investments Deductible Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), Staff Housing Loan Interest Not Deductible
    Exemption Under Section 11 Upheld for Charitable Capital Expenditure and Accumulations Below 15% Limit
    ITAT Upholds Section 148 Reopening Notice Validity Within Section 149 Time Limit, Remands for Fresh Adjudication
    Stock Broker Found Minor SEBI Violations Under Intermediaries Regs, No Penalties Imposed After Corrective Actions
    August 13, 2025 Case Laws Money Laundering
    Bail Denied Under Section 439 CrPC in PMLA Case; Mandatory Conditions Under Section 45 Not Met
    Order freezing electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A quashed for lack of reasons; deposit required for unblocking
    Section 69 additions for unexplained investments denied as investments were recorded and explained with evidence
    Order quashed for lack of reasons and violation of natural justice under Rule 37 procedural safeguards
    HC upholds GST levy on services to foreign universities under Section 74(9) of CGST Act, affirming independent adjudication

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Highlights

Back

All Highlights

Showing Results for : Law : All
Reset Filters
Showing
Records
ExpandCollapse

    Highlights

    Back

    All Highlights

    Showing Results for : Law : AllReset Filters
    Case ID :

    During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs....

    Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee Over Demonetization Deposits, Rejects AO's Suspicion Due to Lack of Evidence.

    📋
    Contents
    Summary
    Note

    Note

    Note

    Bookmark

    print

    Print

    Income TaxAugust 3, 2024Case LawsAT

    During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.

    Topics

    ActsIncome Tax