Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ACIT Vs Sunjewels Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2016
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
ACIT Vs Sunjewels Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) CIT(A) Cannot Set Aside 143(3) Assessment; ITAT Sends Case Back to CIT(A) to Decide on Merits In scrutiny assessment, the AO disallowed purchases of ₹2.21 crore from one supplier and legal/professional expenses of about ₹28.93 lakh for want of supporting evidence. In appeal, the assessee produced detailed additional evidence such as invoices, confirmations, registration details and bank payment proofs. These were sent to the AO for verification in remand proceedings. In his remand report, the AO verified all documents and made no adverse comm...
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Your email address will not be published.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