Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Vasudhevan Muralidharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Vasudhevan Muralidharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ₹3.79 Cr Addition u/s 68 Remanded – ITAT Allows Assessee to Prove Sale of Agri Lands with Fresh Evidence The appeal concerned, an individual engaged in the bakery business, for AY 2018-19. The dispute arose from an addition of ₹3.79 crore u/s 68 made by AO, treating the capital introduced in Assessee’s books as unexplained cash credit. During scrutiny, AO noted that Assessee had introduced capital of ₹3.85 crore in his business. Assessee explained that the funds were sourced from the sale of two agricultural lands & two vacant plots. ...
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

Wrong Section Used to Deny Depreciation Set-Off; Section 263 Order Quashed Municipal Body’s Section 10(20) Exemption Cannot Be Denied Due to Wrong Claim in Return No Addition on a Different Issue if Reopened Issue Fails: ITAT Deletes ₹5.75 Crore Disallowance Retracted Statement Alone Cannot Justify Section 68 Addition: ITAT Deletes Accommodation Loan Additions Section 263 Cannot Be Invoked as AO Made No Addition After Enquiry: ITAT Mumbai 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Your email address will not be published.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