Search: penalty u/s 271

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71 Chennai47 Delhi43 Jaipur31 Visakhapatnam20 Indore17 Chandigarh13 Ahmedabad13 Kolkata12 Hyderabad10 Bangalore10 Agra9 Lucknow8 Nagpur6 Raipur6 Rajkot6 Pune5 Allahabad4 Cochin3 Jabalpur3 Cuttack3 Surat1 Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 44A6 Section 2716 Section 271B4 Section 143(3)3 Penalty3 Section 80P2 Section 442 Section 2732 Section 139(1)2

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

rectification order u/s.154 and accordingly the tax was reduced to Rs.292 and along with interest the final demand was computed at Rs.970. 3. Subsequently the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) considering the original demand on ESOP income not declared in the return. Assessee has submitted reply to penalty notice explaining

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM