DCIT- (It)-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 2977/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit-(It)-3(3)(2), Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai. Flat No.2, Hermes House –Iii, Vs. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025. Pan Abapk9122E (Appellant) Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri V SreekarFor Respondent: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala &
Section 143(3)Section 148
…he assessee was connected to the bank account, the CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Carborandum Co. Vs. CIT [108 ITR 335] as well as judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [94 ITR 85]. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons the CIT(A) found that there was no evidence, which could sustain the premises of the AO that the amount of ` 3,65,85,330/- in question was received or deemed to have been received or accrued in India in the hands of the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, she has deleted the addition made…
