Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Geethamma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Geethamma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Agricultural Income & Kirana Sales – No Straight 69A Addition-Tribunal Orders AO to Verify Sources of Cash Deposits Assessee, a 60-year-old lady with limited education, did not file return for AY 2017-18. It was found that she deposited ₹5.65 lakh in her Canara Bank account during November 2016. AO issued notice u/s 142(1), but in absence of return, completed best judgment assessment u/s 144 on 15.12.2019. AO treated the deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A & taxed them u/s 115BBE, computing total income at ₹6.50 lakh. On appeal, CIT(A) dismisse...
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Your email address will not be published.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