Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : DCIT Vs Sujai Anand Reddy (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2019-20
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
DCIT Vs Sujai Anand Reddy (ITAT Chennai) For addition u/s 69, AO must conclusively establish that assessee made an investment that remains unexplained – Third-Party Loose Sheets& Retracted Statement Can’t Sustain Section 69 Chennai ITAT has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal & upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs 1 crore made u/s 69 . Assessee, an individual, was subjected to search proceedings u/s 132 in connection with the case of South India Bottling Company. During the course of search, no incriminating material was found from his premises to suggest that 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

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Your email address will not be published.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