Search: section 68

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai66 Mumbai46 Jaipur37 Hyderabad28 Karnataka21 Ahmedabad20 Kolkata17 Rajkot15 Pune12 Indore11 Delhi11 Bangalore9 Surat8 Dehradun8 Cochin7 Chandigarh4 Lucknow4 Patna3 Nagpur2 SC2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14715 Section 14415 Penalty9 Section 688 Addition to Income7 Condonation of Delay7 Section 270A6 Section 56 Section 1396 Section 44A

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 539/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

68 of the Act. However since the loans were taken in cash penalty u/s 271D of the Act was initiated and subsequently levied for the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 12. The penalty u/s 271D of the Act is attracted if the assessee fails to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI