This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
CIT(A) Can Call for Evidence Directly – No Rule 46A Violation
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- ACIT Vs Muffazal Lakdawala (ITAT Mumbai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2020-21
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
ACIT Vs Muffazal Lakdawala (ITAT Mumbai)
CIT(A)’s Co-terminus Powers Prevail: ITAT Mumbai Upholds Deletion of ₹3.25 Cr Addition u/s 68
Mumbai ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of ₹3.25 crore added u/s 68 in the case of Muffazal Lakdawala for AY 2020-21
The AO had treated unsecured loans of ₹1.50 crore from Anjuman E-Mohammadi Trust and ₹1.75 crore from Reshma Jairam Shetty as unexplained cash credits solely on the ground that the lenders did not respond to notices u/s 133(6). However, before the CIT(A), the Assessee furnished ITRs of the lenders, confirm...
Author Info
