Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Amit Kumar Banthia (HUF) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Amit Kumar Banthia (HUF) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Reassessment proceedings quashed due to non-compliance with GKN Drive Shaft procedure: Bang ITAT Assessee  filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 11,167/- &  claiming Rs19,38,938  as   exempt u/s 10(38).  Assessee filed its return of income in response  u/s 148  &   called for the copy of reasons recorded. AO provided the reasons recorded on 4.2.2022 & against these reasons, assessee filed its objections on  1.3.2022 objecting  to the re-assessment proceedings. AO completed the assessment & made the...
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

Reopening Fails on Both Counts: Invalid Sec 148A Notice and Time-Barred Sec 148 Render Assessment Void Coffee Income: Rule 7B Overrides Rule 7 – ITAT Remands for Segregation of Own vs Purchased Produce Duty Drawback Taxable Only on Receipt – ITAT Deletes Addition & U/s 270A Penalty Skill Development = “Education” – ITAT Allows Sec 11 Exemption to Charitable Trust No Penalty for Wrong Claim or Head of Income – ITAT Deletes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty 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Your email address will not be published.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
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930