Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Executors of Shri Ramanlal Jagjivan Gokal Vs Additional/ DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Executors of Shri Ramanlal Jagjivan Gokal Vs Additional/DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai ITAT held that where an assessee was never served with the intimation under section 143(1), the limitation period for filing appeal cannot start merely from the date of processing of return. The Tribunal observed that the assessee became aware of the outstanding demand only after receipt of a section 245 adjustment order proposing set-off of refund against old tax demand. The assessee discovered that while processing the return for AY 2009-10, the department had granted TDS credit of only ₹23,501 against to...
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Your email address will not be published.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