Search: condonation of delay

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 144C(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi118 Mumbai83 Hyderabad33 Kolkata32 Bangalore29 Chennai26 Pune13 Jaipur12 Ahmedabad10 Indore8 Chandigarh5 Nagpur5 Visakhapatnam4 Rajkot3 Dehradun2 Cochin2 Raipur1 SC1 Lucknow1

Key Topics

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

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

8 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings and assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect

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