Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Karan Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Karan Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Maths Beats Suspicion! Cash Flow Explained, Addition Denied- Cash Withdrawn > Cash Deposited? ITAT Says: Simple Maths, No 69A In this case, Assessee was a salaried individual earning only salary & bank interest, & had filed his return declaring income of ₹5,62,840 for A.Y. 2017-18. During demonetisation, he deposited ₹4,41,500 in old currency into his bank account. AO treated ₹1,91,500 out of this as unexplained cash deposit & made an addition u/s 69A, alleging that Assessee had not proved the source of cash. CIT(A) confirmed the addition ...
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

Section 68 Additions Fail: Documentary Evidence Cannot Be Ignored Without Enquiry Commission Disallowance Remanded – 133(6) Non-Response Not Sufficient; Ad-hoc Expenses Cut to 10% Stamp Duty vs Actual Value Dispute: ITAT Orders DVO Valuation ITAT Bangalore Remands ₹49L Sec 68 Addition & ₹3.74L TDS Disallowance for Fresh Verification Penalty U/s 272A(1)(d) Deleted: Reasonable Cause Subsequent Compliance Accepted 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930