Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Under-Reporting or Misreporting? – Vague 270A Notice Proves Fatal- ITAT Says AO’s Confusion Invalidates 270A Penalty Assessee filed return of income for AY 2018-19 claiming exemption of capital gains u/s 54F. AO disallowed the claim of ₹25.76 lakh on the ground that Assessee had no evidence of sale or purchase of capital asset & that the exemption was wrongly claimed. Consequently, AO initiated penalty u/s 270A for misreporting of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274, AO mentioned both defaults of under-reporting & mis...
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

Patna ITAT: Interest on Delayed Payment of Sales Tax, Service Tax & Employer’s PF Contribution Allowable; TDS Interest Not Deductible Section 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence 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Your email address will not be published.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
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031