Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Jay Kundan Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2020-2021
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Jay Kundan Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Section 68 Cannot Tax Past-Year Figures; Third-Party Books Not Required from Assessee—Identity & Genuineness Already Proved Assessee’s assessment u/s 143(3) resulted in additions of Rs.22,45,300 u/s 68 towards unsecured loans, including Rs.6,45,300 being difference in loan balance with his father, Shri Kundan Bhatt. Tribunal noted from ledger accounts  & earlier assessment orders (AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20) that the same difference of Rs.6,45,300 was repeatedly added in past years but deleted by CIT(A) as it did not arise from any transactions o...
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Your email address will not be published.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