Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kabir Mulchandani Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2000-01
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Kabir Mulchandani Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee, Kabir Mulchandani, had not filed his return for AY 2000-01 within time. AO completed assessment ex parte u/s 144 determining total income at ₹3.14 crore, making additions under various heads-salary, deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), unexplained cash credits, unexplained expenditure, etc. CIT(A) initially dismissed the appeal, but ITAT remanded the matter in 2007 for fresh consideration. Upon re-adjudication u/s 250 r.w.s. 254, CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and sustained only: ₹23,21,000 as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e); and ₹18,75,000 as un...
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 68 Additions Fail: Documentary Evidence Cannot Be Ignored Without Enquiry Commission Disallowance Remanded – 133(6) Non-Response Not Sufficient; Ad-hoc Expenses Cut to 10% Stamp Duty vs Actual Value Dispute: ITAT Orders DVO Valuation ITAT Bangalore Remands ₹49L Sec 68 Addition & ₹3.74L TDS Disallowance for Fresh Verification Penalty U/s 272A(1)(d) Deleted: Reasonable Cause Subsequent Compliance Accepted 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Your email address will not be published.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