BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

21 results for “section 68”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai35Ahmedabad26Delhi23Karnataka21Surat16Jaipur11Chennai11Bangalore11Hyderabad11Kolkata9Nagpur7Cochin7Rajkot6Pune4Jabalpur3Cuttack3Chandigarh2Indore1Allahabad1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 234E84TDS21

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/41614/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/13065/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/38127/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/3725/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11889/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/16939/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/26589/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/37689/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/18788/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/19762/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/12097/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14296/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/6918/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/15476/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/19398/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

273B, it would indicate that penalty 102 need not be imposed under Section 271H if reasonable cause is shown. The contention of the assessee is that there is no similar provision in the impugned provision namely Section 234E and as such it takes away the valuable right of the assessee. The said contention does not hold water inasmuch