Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2011-12
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Cannot Survive When Quantum Addition is Remanded – Matter Restored to CIT(A) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on addition of ₹10,00,100 as unexplained cash deposits, &  minimum penalty of ₹1,55,561 was confirmed by CIT(A). Before ITAT, Assessee submitted that the quantum addition itself had been remanded back by ITAT in ITA No. 990/Ahd/2025 (order dated 24.09.2025) because the lower authorities did not properly consider evidence explaining the source of cash. ITAT had directed CIT(A) to re-examine all evidence...
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 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence Section 54F Exemption Allowed on Sale of Redeveloped Flat: 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031