Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Mohammed Umaruddin Khamruddin Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2020-21
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download. Already subscribed? Login here to access.
Mohammed Umaruddin Khamruddin Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) APMC Commission Agent Cannot Be Taxed on Entire Sale Proceeds-Bengaluru ITAT Remands ₹2.67 Crore Cash Deposit Addition The Bengaluru ITAT held that cash deposits made by an APMC commission agent cannot automatically be treated as unexplained money under section 69A, merely because they exceed the turnover disclosed in the return of income. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification after finding that the assessee had produced prima facie evidence showing that he was merely acting as a commission agent...
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

Interest on Delayed Sales Tax, Service Tax & PF Payments Deductible; TDS Interest Disallowed: Patna ITAT 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Your email address will not be published.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