Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Cannot Survive When Quantum Itself Is Remanded—Penalty Proceedings Restored to AO for Fresh Decision  Both appeals relate to penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) arising from the same quantum addition in AY 2015-16. In each case, the assessee had claimed deduction of ₹38,15,160 as interest expenditure, which the AO disallowed for lack of nexus with plot-rent income. The AO thereafter levied penalty of ₹32,02,179 in the case of Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah and ₹13,13,232 in the case of Rupa Sachin Shah. Before the Tribunal, it ...
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

SC Slams Casual Sanction of ₹8 Cr Loan After Borrower Defaults From Day One Inheritance Isn’t a Birthright When a Valid Will Exists: SC Interest on Bank Deposits Can Still Qualify for 80P Deduction- Bangalore ITAT Gives Relief to Credit Co-operative Society SC: Interest on Borrowed Funds Allowed Even for Investment Through Group Concerns – Commercial Expediency Prevails Penalty for Unsecured Loans Not Automatic Merely for Section 68 Addition: ITAT Bangalore 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Your email address will not be published.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
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031