Search: condonation of delay

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 92D(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6 Delhi6 Chennai4 Bangalore4 Pune2 Karnataka1 Ahmedabad1 Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 26314 Section 92C13 Section 143(3)5 Transfer Pricing4 Addition to Income4 Section 10B2 Condonation of Delay2 Comparables/TP2

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

In the result appeal stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 337/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Barath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR

Section 92C

condonation of delay in filing present appeal stands allowed. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5. Assessee is a company and filed its return of income for year under consideration on 31/10/2005 declaring nil income. The return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and Page 6 of 28 ITA No.337 & 204/Bang/2014 the case was subsequently

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-7, BENGALURU