Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation Of Liabilities) Act, 2017
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs Dcit, Bangalore on 10 April, 2018
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in
deleting the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposit of SBNs.
10.2 Furthermore, as contended by the ld. AR, the cash deposited in Specified
Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetisation period was lawfully collected and
such deposit was not prohibited under the provisions of the Specified Bank Notes
(Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. In accordance with the said Act, the 'appointed
date' beyond which transactions in SBNs were no longer permitted was 31.12.2016.
Therefore, we find merit in the argument advanced by the ld. AR. This issue stands
squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the
case of Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT (supra), wherein, under an identical set of
facts, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer after duly
considering the following precedents rendered by this Tribunal: M/s. Micky Fireworks
Industries vs. ACIT - ITA No. 264/2023 dated 26.07.2023; Mrs. Umamaheshwari vs.
ITO - ITA No. 527/Chny/2022 dated 14.10.2022; and Amar Sparklers Factory vs.
ITO - ITA No. 808/Chny/2023 dated 11.10.2023, and held as under:
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Micky Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi vs Acit Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai on 26 July, 2023
6,62,783/-. In so far as addition of Rs. 20,40,000/- towards advance
received from group concerns, it was an argument of the appellant that
group concerns have paid advance in cash during demonetization period
and deposited into IDBI bank account. In this regard, the appellant has
filed necessary details including PAN nos. and confirmation letters from
the group concerns to prove receipt of trade advance. The Assessing
Officer has not disputed these facts, however made additions only on the
ground that the assessee should not have accepted cash in specified
bank notes after 08.11.2016. We find that this issue is covered in favour of
the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of
M/s. Micky Fireworks Industries vs ACIT in ITA No. 264/Chny/2023, dated
26.07.2023, where the Tribunal under identical set of facts deleted
additions made by the Assessing Officer, and the findings of the Tribunal
is reproduced as under:
Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs Ito , Coimbatore on 14 October, 2022
7. The SMC bench of this Tribunal in Mrs. Umamaheswari Vs. ITO
(supra), on identical facts, deleted similar additions on the ground that the
assessee had duly evidenced the source of cash deposit and therefore,
addition could not be made u/s 68.