Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Periyasamy Arunachalam Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Periyasamy Arunachalam Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) U/s 115BBE Amendment Not Retrospective – ITAT Chennai Restricts Tax to 30% for Pre-01.04.2017 Transactions In this case, the assessee faced additions under Section 68 for cash deposits during the demonetization period, and the Assessing Officer applied tax @ 60% under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) upheld this higher rate. However, before the ITAT Chennai, the assessee argued that the amended higher rate of 60% under Section 115BBE (introduced w.e.f. 15.12.2016) is applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards, and not for A.Y. 2017-18. The Tribunal r...
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Your email address will not be published.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