Search: house property

3 results for “house property”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore27 Jaipur11 Mumbai10 Hyderabad9 Delhi8 Chennai6 Amritsar5 Pune3 Kolkata2 Surat2 Cuttack2 Guwahati2 Nagpur1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 271D9 Section 269S6 Section 271(1)(b)3 Section 1323 Penalty3 Addition to Income2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

273B, the Assessee had reasonable cause for accepting the cash from its customers. 8.2 Pertinently, the A.O. has not disputed any of the above basic facts. 8.3 The AO levied the penalty u/s. 271D by principally relying on the amendment made in section 194 IA vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, wherein in the definition of the term 'consideration

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

SHIVPRASAD KASHINATH DESAI,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO WARD , KUDAL