Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : DCIT Vs Sujai Anand Reddy (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2019-20
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
DCIT Vs Sujai Anand Reddy (ITAT Chennai) For addition u/s 69, AO must conclusively establish that assessee made an investment that remains unexplained – Third-Party Loose Sheets& Retracted Statement Can’t Sustain Section 69 Chennai ITAT has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal & upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs 1 crore made u/s 69 . Assessee, an individual, was subjected to search proceedings u/s 132 in connection with the case of South India Bottling Company. During the course of search, no incriminating material was found from his premises to suggest that he ...
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

Interest on Delayed Sales Tax, Service Tax & PF Payments Deductible; TDS Interest Disallowed: Patna ITAT 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 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Your email address will not be published.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