Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pusa Nanda Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2007-2008
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Pusa Nanda Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Wrong CA Advice & Covid Delay Accepted—Tribunal Orders De-Novo Examination of 153A Addition with No Incriminating Material Assessee filed appeal with 868-day delay against CIT(A)’s order sustaining addition of ₹1,17,50,000/- u/s 50C in search assessment u/s 153A. Delay-condonation petition & affidavit explained that earlier CA wrongly advised not to appeal; later Assessee attempted settlement under Vivad-se-Vishwas which was rejected due to prosecution u/s 276C(2); Covid-19 period further contributed to delay. Tribunal held that wrong...
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Your email address will not be published.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