Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raju Chandrasekar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Raju Chandrasekar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Penalty Cannot Survive When Reassessment Is Quashed: ITAT Chennai Deletes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty for AY 2015-16 The Chennai Bench of the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 and set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), holding that the penalty had no legs to stand once the quantum reassessment itself was quashed. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment for the relevant year had already been set aside by the ITAT in the assessee’s quantum appeal, on the ground that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdict...
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Your email address will not be published.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