Search: section 68

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271D37 Section 269S15 Section 54F11 Penalty8 Addition to Income6 Section 271E5 Section 143(3)4 Section 2694 Section 2504 Section 271D(2)

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

section 273B of the Act. Page 36 of 37 With respect to assessee's claim that the transaction in question 38. was neither loan nor deposit because the amount having been received from the trustee, was receipt to oneself, there was no reason for levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act and that the default

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

SRI.YARABOLU SESHADRI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

DR. SANKARAN SUNDAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

LAXMILAL BADOLLA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

KALAHALLI THIMMANAYAK SURESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

MFAR HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE