The issue involved SBN deposits treated as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount again results in impermissible double taxation.
The issue involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that deposits backed by recorded sales cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
The issue involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained credit. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by recorded sales and identifiable debtors, Section 68 cannot be invoked.
The issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The issue involved treating cash deposits as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same income again results in impermissible double taxation.
The issue was denial of deduction under Section 54F as a fresh claim not made in return. The ruling remanded the matter, holding such claims can be examined if supported by facts.
The issue was whether full bank deposits of a commission agent can be taxed as unexplained income. The ruling held only commission income taxable, with 8% estimation upheld as reasonable.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond 3 years is valid when escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The ruling held such notice invalid under Section 149, and the key takeaway is strict adherence to limitation rules.
The Tribunal examined whether cash deposits backed by prior withdrawals can be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that in absence of evidence showing alternative use of cash, the source stands explained.
