SURAJ DINESH SINGHAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7483/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 June 2023AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the entire disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate their claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order involved additions related to short-term capital gains, unexplained money, HRA exemption, undisclosed salary income, and Section 80C deductions. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present evidence and whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified without considering all evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Mr. S.G.Mehta.DR
Hearing: 30.05.2022Pronounced: 31.05.2022

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4.

Suraj Dinesh Singhal, Mumbai - 6 -

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →