Search: disallowance

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63 Bangalore54 Delhi50 Kolkata34 Ahmedabad23 Jaipur12 Chandigarh10 Chennai8 Lucknow7 Panaji5 Rajkot4 Ranchi3 Hyderabad2 Cuttack2 Pune2 Raipur2 SC1 Nagpur1 Agra1 Visakhapatnam1 Surat1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 406 Section 201(1)4 Section 372 Section 2012 Section 1392 Disallowance2

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2256/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(3)Section 37

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessees tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

RAMESH GELLI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD