Search: penalty u/s 271

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 2719 Section 143(3)8 Section 44A6 Section 2636 Penalty5 Section 271B4 Section 56(2)(viib)3 Deduction3 Section 80P2

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless it is deliberate and intentional so as to evade payment of tax. The learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee has been working in Dhanalakshmi Bank during the year under consideration and while filing

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

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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