Search: penalty u/s 271

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 26342 Section 143(3)19 Addition to Income6 Section 695 Section 271(1)(c)5 Disallowance3 Section 115B2 Section 682 Section 6(1)(iii)

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 357/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted. It is also a fact on record which stands undisputed when Paper Book pages 73, 194, 244 and 294 are seen that the AO in the facts of the present case has not identified the specific charge which he seeks to invoke. The prayer for quashing the penalty order

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK