Search: section 68

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai35 Ahmedabad26 Delhi23 Karnataka21 Surat16 Jaipur13 Hyderabad11 Bangalore11 Chennai11 Visakhapatnam9 Kolkata9 Chandigarh7 Cochin7 Nagpur7 Rajkot6 Pune4 Jabalpur3 Cuttack3 Allahabad1 Varanasi1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 271D25 Section 271E15 Penalty7 Section 284 Section 2712 Section 271(1)(c)2 Addition to Income2 Natural Justice2

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik

Section 271DSection 271E

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

SH. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SH. AJMER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANCHKULA

SH. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SH. AJMER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANCHKULA