Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Parasuraman Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2022-23
Courts : ITAT Chennai
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Parasuraman Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

ITAT Chennai deletes penalty u/s 271B – commission agent not liable for audit when only earning commission income

Assessee, an individual from Cuddalore, filed his return for AY 2022-23 declaring income of ₹ 5,04,770 from commission business. He acted as an agent collecting stamp-duty payments from the public & remitting them to the Tamil Nadu Registration Department, earning a small commission thereon. During scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, the AO accepted the Assessee’s explanation for cash deposits &

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

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

Routine Business Cash Deposits Not Taxable Despite No ITR Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Addition Overturned for Earlier Property Booking Revenue’s Section 68 Challenge Rejected on Evidence and Repayment Advance Loss Treated as Trading Loss: ITAT Allows ₹1.5 Cr Write-Off Finance Broker Taxed Only on Brokerage as No Evidence of Income Found 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
December 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031