Search: disallowance

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63 Bangalore54 Delhi50 Kolkata34 Chandigarh10 Ahmedabad9 Chennai8 Lucknow7 Jaipur6 Panaji5 Ranchi3 Raipur2 Surat1 Visakhapatnam1 Cuttack1 Rajkot1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12 Section 201(1)6 Section 271C6 TDS5 Section 404 Section 2013 Section 194C3 Section 10(20)3 Section 10(46)3 Exemption

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

271C is guided by section 275(1)(c) and therefore independent of any assessment order through which the penalty might have been initiated. Therefore, the cited court case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017)394 ITR 312 (Del) is not applicable to the fact of the instant case. The appellant has raised the issue of reasonable cause

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR