Search: house property

2 results for “house property”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka21 Bangalore19 Jaipur16 Mumbai13 Ahmedabad9 Visakhapatnam9 Delhi8 Surat5 Chennai4 Hyderabad4 Cochin2 Pune2 Cuttack2 Amritsar1 Jabalpur1 Dehradun1 Nagpur1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 271E13 Section 143(3)7 Section 1482 Section 69D2 Penalty2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

section 271E of IT Act 1961. 2. It is submitted that monetary limit of CBDT Circulars no. 17/2019 will not apply as penalty has been levied on observation of Audit Objection, which falls under exception 10(c) as laid down by the Board in Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 as amended by Board's letter dated 20.08.2019. 3. The appellant

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

271E of the Act.\nAgain, the assessee filed reply on 14.03.2022 and stated that the\nstatement given by him before the police authorities was under\ncoercion, threat and undue pressure and even that statement\nwas not signed and thus he denied the contents of his statement\nrecorded by the police authorities. It was also stated that Mr.\nPankaj Radheshyam Agrawal