Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Suhas Ramesh Rao Rangadhol Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Suhas Ramesh Rao Rangadhol Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee challenged addition of ₹33.20 lakh u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE towards demonetisation cash deposits & GP addition of ₹94,903. AO treated SBN deposits as unexplained despite assessee showing cash balances across three proprietary concerns & offering sales in books. ITAT held that assessee had sufficient cash on hand as on 09-11-2016 reflected in regular books & not disproved by AO. Mere deposit of existing cash during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained unless books are rejected or cash balance shown as fictitious. ...
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Your email address will not be published.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