Search: penalty u/s 271

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Lucknow24 Chandigarh15 Chennai11 Delhi10 Pune6 Patna4 Ahmedabad4 Indore3 Mumbai3 Bangalore3 Jaipur2 Rajkot1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)21 Addition to Income11 Disallowance7 Section 271(1)(b)4 Section 69A4 Unexplained Investment4 Penalty4

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel

Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

142A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, all the three appeals for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 are allowed. Since we have quashed the assessments itself, we are not going into the other arguments and grounds raised by the assessee as well as by department in these appeals. 13. In the result, all the three appeals

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD