Search: bogus purchases

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi21 Jaipur6 Mumbai5 Chennai5 Kolkata5 Indore3 Cuttack2 Hyderabad2 Pune1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1485 Section 271B5 Section 1474 Addition to Income4 Section 153A3 Section 682 Section 41(1)2

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

ITA 5151/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271Section 271B

bogus purchases. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271B for failure to get account audited. 3. The AO subsequently issued a penalty notice under section 271B of the Act and issued show-cause notice dated 22.12.2017. In response, the assessee submitted that “With reference to your notice, regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271 B of the income

DY CIT -14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AYG REALTY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result there is no cause of grievance made out by the assessee on which this tribunal can adjudicate hence, challenging the initiation itself is not allowed hence, found to be infructuous

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

DY CIT -14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AYG REALTY LTD., MUMBAI

JIGNESH SURESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,1,, THANE

DY CIT -14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AYG REALTY LTD., MUMBAI

CHOUDHURY & CHOUDHURY INDIA LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS AYG REALTY P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL)-22, MUMBAI

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

M/S EKTA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI