Search: penalty u/s 271

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai90 Ahmedabad25 Jaipur17 Kolkata16 Delhi13 Hyderabad12 Surat5 Pune4 Indore4 Raipur4 Lucknow3 Cuttack2 Ranchi2 Rajkot2 Jodhpur1 Bangalore1 Chennai1 Guwahati1 Agra1 Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)6 Section 2714 Penny Stock2 Exemption2 Deduction2 Penalty2 Addition to Income2

PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 823/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.822&823/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Garg Huf Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Gurudrawara Road, Rourkela, Vs Odisha-769001. (Pan: Aahhp0557Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271

penny stock stands deleted. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefit of exemption claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act.” 3.1 It was the submission that the issue is fully covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that ITA No.822/CTK/2025 is consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271