Search: penalty u/s 271

92 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi92 Mumbai60 Jaipur43 Bangalore43 Ahmedabad30 Amritsar19 Hyderabad18 Allahabad17 Kolkata17 Pune16 Indore14 Chandigarh13 Rajkot8 Patna5 Surat4 Cochin4 Visakhapatnam3 Dehradun3 Chennai2 Nagpur1 Jodhpur1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 69A61 Addition to Income59 Section 271(1)(c)50 Section 143(2)41 Section 143(3)36 Section 37(1)36 Section 13233 Section 10A26 Disallowance

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.84,97,000/- in respect of the addition of Rs.2.50 crores i.e. the disallowance of claim of donation paid by the assessee company. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, confirmed the penalty. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

ASHOKA MACHINE TOOLS INTL. PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -3(3), NEW DELHI

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

JATINDER PAL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT- CC-8, NEW DELHI

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

BIJENDER KUMAR,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

BIJENDER KUMAR,GREAER NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

VINOD GUGNANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(1), DELHI