Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Madhavi Beeravolu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Madhavi Beeravolu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Penalty u/s 271AAC & 270A Restored – ITAT Sends Back Penalty Appeals as Quantum Itself Remanded  Assessee did not file return for AY 2018-19. AO reopened the case u/s 147 based on sale of immovable property & cash deposits. Assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s 144/144B, determining income at ₹1,00,91,053/-. Penalties were separately levied: (i) ₹93,941/- u/s 271AAC(1) on addition u/s 69A for cash deposits, & (ii) ₹2,15,052/- u/s 270A for under-reported income. CIT(A) dismissed quantum appeal due to delay & also uphel...
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

ITAT Hyderabad: 100% Disallowance of Promotion Expenses Unjustified; 50% Adhoc Disallowance Sustained Seized Cash Explained from Past Records: ITAT Grants Major Relief, Sustains Only Unproved Portion Reopening Invalid for Want of Proper Approval – ITAT Quashes U/s 148 Notice No Section 56(2)(x) Tax on Redevelopment Flat Without Possession: ITAT Mumbai Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Assessment Order Itself Was Not Served: 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930