Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Neeta Chaudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Neeta Chaudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Faceless AO Ignored Evidence of Family Funding – Tribunal Restores Justice for Homemaker- Addition u/s 69A for Unexplained Investment Deleted – Proof of Source from Son’s Bank Account Ignored by AO & CIT(A) Assessee, an individual homemaker, had not filed her return for AY 2016-17. AO noticed that she purchased a residential flat worth ₹70.64 lakh during FY 2015-16. On enquiry u/s 133(6), the seller confirmed receipt of payments by cheques & TDS of ₹70,600 was deducted. Since Assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of funds...
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Your email address will not be published.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