Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
No Records Found
Page of 4316
1 to 20 of 86308 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 3000
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Chennai considered a case involving a Best Judgment...
ITAT Chennai Upholds Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144 Due to Late Filing and Unexplained Cash Deposits.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
AI Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
Income TaxMay 30, 2024Case LawsAT
The ITAT Chennai considered a case involving a Best Judgment Assessment conducted u/s. 144 due to the assessee's failure to file a return within the specified time u/s. 142(1). The AO treated the return as 'invalid' and proceeded with the assessment. The intimation u/s. 143(1) by CPC, Bangalore did not regularize the return, as the AO explicitly deemed it invalid. The assessment without a notice u/s. 143(2) was upheld as valid. Regarding cash deposits during demonetization, the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation, leading to confirmation of the addition. Profit rate determination at 8% on total turnover was upheld due to lack of evidence or explanation. The appeal on these issues was dismissed.
The ITAT Chennai considered a case involving a Best Judgment Assessment conducted u/s. 144 due to the assessee's failure to file a return within the specified time u/s. 142(1). The AO treated the return as 'invalid' and proceeded with the assessment. The intimation u/s. 143(1) by CPC, Bangalore did not regularize the return, as the AO explicitly deemed it invalid. The assessment without a notice u/s. 143(2) was upheld as valid. Regarding cash deposits during demonetization, the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation, leading to confirmation of the addition. Profit rate determination at 8% on total turnover was upheld due to lack of evidence or explanation. The appeal on these issues was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.