Search: condonation of delay

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi134 Mumbai98 Hyderabad36 Kolkata36 Chennai32 Bangalore31 Jaipur12 Pune12 Ahmedabad11 Chandigarh5 Visakhapatnam4 Indore4 Rajkot3 Nagpur2 Dehradun2 Cochin1 Calcutta1 Raipur1 SC1 Agra1 Cuttack1 Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 808 Section 80I6 Section 143(3)4 Section 144C2 Section 92C2 Section 92B2 Transfer Pricing2 Deduction2 Comparables/TP2

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

144C (15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order/reference to DRP etc.; and • Furthermore, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 is beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR