Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Swamyraju Chandrashekar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Swamyraju Chandrashekar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Summary: The appellate authority held that the addition of ₹11,00,000 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act for AY 2016-17 was unjustified. The assessee had deposited ₹11,00,000 in cash on 25 January 2016, claiming it was part of the sale proceeds of a property sold on 17 April 2015, with the cash component totaling ₹13,30,000. The AO rejected this explanation, citing the ten-month delay and presuming the funds were likely used for house construction. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. On appeal, the authority noted that suspicion or assump...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Penny Stock Addition Fails: ITAT Says Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence Borrowed Satisfaction: ITAT Quashes Penny Stock Additions in Multiple Family Cases Statement Alone Cannot Justify ‘On-Money’ Addition: ITAT Mumbai Genuine ITR Mistake Cannot Lead to Tax on Wrong Income: ITAT Mumbai AO Cannot Reopen on the Same Material Examined in U/s 153C Assessment: ITAT Quashes ₹2.90 Crore Addition View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930