Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Manish Punjabhai Odedra Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Manish Punjabhai Odedra Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) Cash Deposits on Behalf of Clients Not Assessee’s Own Funds – Section 69A Held Inapplicable- ITAT Rajkot Deletes ₹61 Lakh Addition u/s 69A – Assessee Proved to be a Commission Agent, Not Owner of Funds AO had reopened the case & treated cash deposits in bank as unexplained money, rejecting Assessee’s explanation that the funds belonged to clients for whom he executed derivative transactions as a sub-share broker. Assessee furnished bank statements, ledgers of Angel Broking & Sunflower Broking, SEBI certificate, affidavits, & co...
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Your email address will not be published.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