Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Anilraddi Karakalli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Anilraddi Karakalli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee challenged the addition of ₹26,05,353 made u/s 69A , representing alleged unexplained cash deposits. The core issue in the appeal was the admission of additional evidence—documents that were not furnished during assessment or first appeal but were claimed to be critical for just adjudication. Assessee, engaged in contract & wage work, deposited ₹26 lakh in cash but initially failed to file a return. Return was filed later u/s 148, declaring ₹3.61 lakh income u/s 44AD. AO treated the entire deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A due...
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

Reopening Fails on Both Counts: Invalid Sec 148A Notice and Time-Barred Sec 148 Render Assessment Void Coffee Income: Rule 7B Overrides Rule 7 – ITAT Remands for Segregation of Own vs Purchased Produce Duty Drawback Taxable Only on Receipt – ITAT Deletes Addition & U/s 270A Penalty Skill Development = “Education” – ITAT Allows Sec 11 Exemption to Charitable Trust No Penalty for Wrong Claim or Head of Income – ITAT Deletes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty 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Your email address will not be published.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