Search: section 68

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai56 Jaipur32 Mumbai27 Karnataka21 Kolkata12 Ahmedabad9 Hyderabad7 Delhi6 Bangalore6 Indore4 Pune3 Varanasi2 Chandigarh2 Rajkot2 SC2 Jodhpur1 Calcutta1 Nagpur1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 44A15 Section 271B13 Section 687 Section 271D7 Section 269S7 Section 1475 Addition to Income5 Section 1484 Section 271A4 Bogus/Accommodation Entry

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Sri KPRR Murthy

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273

68,150/- was paid and proof enclosed. 7(iii) In the light of contentions, raised by the assessee that the amount of cash received by him is not a loan or deposit, but sale consideration received on sale of immovable property and that provisions of section 269SS are not applicable, on receipt of such sale consideration in cash

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR