Search: disallowance

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai31 Chennai21 Indore20 Delhi14 Ahmedabad14 Hyderabad13 Bangalore12 Nagpur10 Visakhapatnam9 Surat7 Jaipur6 Lucknow5 Kolkata5 Chandigarh2 Pune2 SC1 Rajkot1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271E15 Section 269T13 Section 143(3)4 Section 271A4 Section 44A4 Addition to Income4 Penalty4 Section 2633 Section 269S3 Section 144

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURDWAN vs. PAHARHATI O UTTAR MEMARI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, ACITFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

269T of the Act, which worked out to ₹1,00,40,222/-, was imposed. The penalty was initiated on account of findings made in the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Act and the relevant extract from Page 2 of the order is as under:- “In this regard the assessee was asked to explain source of cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURDWAN vs. PAHARHATI O UTTAR MEMARI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, BURDWAN

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURDWAN vs. PAHARHATI O UTTAR MEMARI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, BURDWAN

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-47,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

M/S ARKIT VINCOM PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

RAMAN KUMAR MALHOTRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA