Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Guneet Kaur Chadha Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Guneet Kaur Chadha Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Earlier Withdrawals = Explained Source: Section 69A Addition Quashed- No Evidence of Diversion, Cash Balance Proven—115BBE Addition Removed Assessee filed ROI declaring income of ₹16,88,110. During demonetization, she deposited ₹25,00,000 (11-11-2016) & ₹4,000 (22-11-2016) in specified bank notes. AO held that the explanation for source was not satisfactory & made an addition of ₹25,04,000 u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, which CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed. Assessee explained that she had accumulated cash from substantial withdrawals during FY 2015-16 &a...
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Your email address will not be published.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