Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Shashikala Ram Kumar Vs ACIT (Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2014-15
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Smt. Shashikala Ram Kumar Vs ACIT (Hyderabad) Assesee disputed additions made u/s40(a)(ia) & 40A(3) before the CIT (A) and produced certificates under proviso to section 201(1) whereby CIT(A) deleted the 40(a)(ia) addition but confirmed the addition u/s40A(3). On further appeal before the the Tribunal Revenue contended that unless the assessee proves the circumstances under rule 6DD, he cannot claim any exception to sec 40A(3). Assessee produced a certificate issued by payee stating that they refused to entertain cheques since cheques issued by the assessee were bounced on account of attac...
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Your email address will not be published.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