Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ganganally Mallappa Basavaraju Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2020-21
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Ganganally Mallappa Basavaraju Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Bangalore ITAT Deletes Penalty U/s 271AAC – Penalty for Unsecured Loans Not Automatic Merely Because Addition Was Made U/s 68 In a significant ruling, the Bangalore ITAT held that penalty u/s 271AAC is not automatic merely because an addition is made u/s 68 towards unsecured loans. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and discretionary powers vested with the AO must be exercised judiciously. The assessee, a civil works contractor engaged in Government contracts, had filed an updated return u/s...
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Your email address will not be published.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