Search: condonation of delay

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 14712 Section 271F9 Penalty7 Section 12A6 Section 2746 Condonation of Delay6 Section 142(1)5 Addition to Income5 Section 139(1)4

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 253(2)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 5

condoning the delay of 83 days. Ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the contentions made by the ld Counsel and submitted that the penalty has been rightfully imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the written submissions made

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

VANAJA,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 HOSUR, HOSUR TAMIL NADU

VENUS TEXTILES,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KARUR, KARUR

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

KRISHNAN RAJINI,,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI