Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ameeta Paramanand Nadkarni Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Ameeta Paramanand Nadkarni Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) VSV Form-3 Without Payment Doesn’t Bar Appeal: ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹7.65 Lakh Demonetisation Addition   Mumbai   ITAT allowed the Assessee’s appeal and deleted the addition of ₹7,64,940 made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE relating to demonetisation-period cash deposits. The AO had accepted part of the cash deposits of ₹17.56 lakh and treated the balance ₹7.64 lakh as unexplained. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the Assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and Form-3 had been issued. The Tribunal he...
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

SC Slams Casual Sanction of ₹8 Cr Loan After Borrower Defaults From Day One Inheritance Isn’t a Birthright When a Valid Will Exists: SC Interest on Bank Deposits Can Still Qualify for 80P Deduction- Bangalore ITAT Gives Relief to Credit Co-operative Society SC: Interest on Borrowed Funds Allowed Even for Investment Through Group Concerns – Commercial Expediency Prevails Penalty for Unsecured Loans Not Automatic Merely for Section 68 Addition: ITAT Bangalore 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031