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.
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 & the business model, concluding ...
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Your email address will not be published.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