Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Subbiah Rajendran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Subbiah Rajendran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ITAT Chennai restricts addition on cash deposits – Treats assessee as commission agent, estimates income at 4% instead of taxing entire deposits Assessee, an individual engaged in onion commission business, did not file return of income for AY 2012-13. Based on information of cash deposits of ₹1,00,31,039/- in ICICI Bank, AO issued notices u/s 148 & 142(1). As there was no compliance, AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 & completed it ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s.147, treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A & made full add...
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

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 Section 54F Exemption Allowed on Sale of Redeveloped Flat: ITAT Mumbai 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Your email address will not be published.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