Search: penalty u/s 271

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi192 Mumbai73 Bangalore40 Ahmedabad19 Kolkata18 Hyderabad15 Chennai9 Pune6 Jaipur4 Visakhapatnam3 Surat2 Karnataka1 Indore1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 115B10 Addition to Income4 Section 132(1)2 Section 271(1)(c)2 Section 92C2 Section 143(3)2 Unexplained Investment2 Transfer Pricing2 Penalty

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR