Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp. (DKTS)

[loanranger]

You are just asking for trouble when trying to analyze a Cash Flow Statement, which serves the purpose of reconciling the beginning and ending cash balances of the period. It's the most difficult of the 3 statements to follow.
If you look at the headings of Q1 and Q2 and the very end of the respective CF statements, you will note that they BOTH begin at January 1 and reflect the same beginning Cash balance. That's why you see the three items that you posted in red on BOTH statements (they actually occurred in the first quarter but, obviously then, they also occurred in the first half).

Easiest question first:
"Why do the numbers between the two sections not match up?"
Because (for Q1) the first numbers you list are from the Balance Sheet, which reflects assets at a specific point in time...in this case at 3/31. The second group of numbers is from the CF Statement, which reflects activity DURING the quarter.
So the "Net cash provided by Financing Activities" of 10K reflects the new lending of 75k net of the 65K which was either paid in cash or converted to shares. (I need to add that I'm describing how this stuff is SUPPOSED to work, which may or may not be the way the accountant prepared it.)
We SHOULD know whether that 65K was paid by the company in cash or shares from the Disclosure Statement that accompanied the financials. When we look at the Issuance History in the Disclosure, if the debt was paid in shares, we would expect to see that fact reported, including the price per share used to determine the number of shares issued. Since no issuances have been reported in any of the three Disclosure Statements filed since the beginning of the year, logic would dictate that the 65K was paid in cash. But that's just not a reasonable conclusion.
The first Disclosure statement showed approx 1.1 billion shares outstanding on 1/24/14 while the next 2 Disclosure statements showed approx 1.6 billion shares outstanding as of 7/28. The only way that could have occurred is if 500 million shares (at least) were issued between those two dates. The only way the Issuance Histories for Q1 and Q2 could properly avoid reporting some or all of those 500 million shares is if they were issued between 7/1 and 7/28 and I submit that is not worthy of consideration. At the very least we are aware of 9 million shares issued to a promoter at some point during the first half.

We can't rely on the Disclosure Statements. Alonzo has apparently decided not to provide any information regarding the issuance of shares, even though such information is a requirement of the filing. Sadly Otcmarkets doesn't care....they accept whatever crap is submitted. Everybody's happy and gets to stand around cheering because the company is CURRENT!!!

One last thing. I have no idea what this is:
"Notes Payable - Other -10,842.95"
There's no reason to show a negative number in the Notes Payable section of a Balance Sheet. It makes no sense at all. If it represents partial payments or conversions to shares of the 3 notes shown then that should be shown as a reduction of the note amount, not a separate negative number.

There's plenty of stuff in the company's filings that doesn't make sense. If you have any other specifics I'll try to address them.