Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shankar Rajashekar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Shankar Rajashekar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return &  the case was selected for scrutiny. AO noticed a deduction claimed u/s 54/54F, assumed that Assessee had sold a property, &  since no supporting details were furnished, he computed capital gains &  made additions. Assessee’s then representative had even submitted a copy of “sale deed” (actually agreement of sale) &  a computation including capital gains. Before CIT(A), Assessee took a completely different stand—he stated that no property was ever sold, &  the capital ga...
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Your email address will not be published.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