Search: penalty u/s 271

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Allahabad37 Delhi28 Mumbai25 Indore13 Chennai12 Bangalore9 Lucknow8 Hyderabad5 Surat4 Ahmedabad4 Jaipur3 Kerala3 Pune3 Amritsar2 Chandigarh2 Kolkata2 Rajkot2 Agra1 Raipur1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)9 Section 106 Section 54B6 Section 54F5 Section 144A4 Section 153A3 Section 139(1)3 Addition to Income3 Section 1482

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2455/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 50C

section 273B and notwithstanding the fact that there existed a reasonable cause. The order be therefore quashed. 3.0 The appellant without prejudice to above further submits that the penalty imposed by the assessing officer in any event is excessively high. The appellant submits that penalty be reduced. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessment u/s

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

ABBASBHAI SAJAUDINBHAI BARAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA