Search: penalty u/s 271

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62 Ahmedabad61 Delhi38 Bangalore38 Jaipur31 Indore18 Raipur10 Chandigarh6 Pune6 Kolkata6 Lucknow4 Rajkot4 Surat3 Hyderabad3 Amritsar3 Jodhpur1 Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4 Addition to Income3

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

36(i)(va) of the Act. These additions were confirmed by the CIT as well as ITAT penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. After getting the order of the ITAT, the case was fixed for hearing on 22.05.2014 but the assessee failed to make any compliance therefore the AO imposed penalty of Rs.40,03,762/- u/s 271

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU