PIYUSH MADHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4213/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 March 2017AY 2012-139 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the addition under Section 68 should be restricted to 25% of the cash deposited in the bank account, as agreed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 24 days. The Assessing Officer added cash deposits to the assessee's income under Section 68, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and whether the entire cash deposits should be added as unexplained income under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 139,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 44AF,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh
Hearing: 09/03/2017

आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT, Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 4. ववबागीम प्रयतयनगध, आमकय अऩीरीम अगधकयण, भुिंफई / DR, 5. ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →