Search: penalty u/s 271

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)16 Section 1489 Section 1478 Addition to Income6 Penalty5 Section 143(3)4 Section 683 Section 2823 Section 151

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

4 The Baramulla Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and also during the course of assessment proceedings. The claim of deduction of Rs.70,95,288/- in respect of additional provision for bad & doubtful debts was to be restricted the actual provision made as against which the claim was made against the provision to the gross total income. Since

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

SH. MANINDER SINGH PROP. M/S DASHMESH BRICKS,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

SH. MANINDER SINGH PROP. M/S DASHMESH BRICKS,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR