Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section 54 deduction on reinvestment made jointly with her son The AO: Reclassified hire charges as house property income Restricted Section 54 deduction Levied penalty alleging inaccurate particulars However, the Tribunal observed: All fac...
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

Section 68 Additions Fail: Documentary Evidence Cannot Be Ignored Without Enquiry Commission Disallowance Remanded – 133(6) Non-Response Not Sufficient; Ad-hoc Expenses Cut to 10% Stamp Duty vs Actual Value Dispute: ITAT Orders DVO Valuation ITAT Bangalore Remands ₹49L Sec 68 Addition & ₹3.74L TDS Disallowance for Fresh Verification Penalty U/s 272A(1)(d) Deleted: Reasonable Cause Subsequent Compliance Accepted 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Your email address will not be published.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