Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raman Mayavan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Raman Mayavan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Confirmations Filed but Not Considered—ITAT Chennai Remands ₹2.19 Cr 68 Addition- Assessment Concluded Before Assessee Could Furnish Proof— Rule 46A Evidence Ignored by CIT(A)—Fresh Opportunity Ordered Chennai Tribunal considered additions u/s 68 aggregating to ₹3,02,65,000 relating to unsecured loan of ₹83,00,000 & advances/creditors of ₹2,19,65,000. Assessee had sought two days’ time during assessment to furnish remaining confirmations, but AO concluded the assessment on 19.12.2018 before such details could be filed. Additional evidence...
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Your email address will not be published.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