Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Hanif Osman Ravda Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download. Already Upgraded? Login here to access.
Hanif Osman Ravda Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) Presumptive Income u/s 44AD Covers Cash Deposits – No Further 69A Addition; Entire ₹13.71 Lakh Deleted in Assessee’s Favour Assessee, a small trader in cutlery, did not file return u/s 139(1) as his income was below taxable limit. AO obtained information of cash deposits of ₹13,71,365 in Union Bank account & issued notice u/s 148 on 27.03.2019. Assessee replied but did not file return in time. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A, ignoring Assessee’s business explanatio...
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

Bengaluru ITAT: Reassessment Quashed as Section 148A(b) Notice Granting Less Than Seven Days’ Time Is Invalid Salary Taxable Only on Accrual, Not Mere Form 16 or 26AS Entries: Bengaluru ITAT Search Assessments Restored Despite Non-Compliance, Subject to ₹50,000 Cost: Bengaluru ITAT Section 270A Penalty Invalid Without Specific Charge: Bengaluru ITAT TDS Credit Denied Where Income Taxed in Another Entity’s Hands: ITAT Bangalore 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Your email address will not be published.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