Search: reassessment

8 results for “reassessment”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 14810 Section 10(38)10 Section 2639 Penny Stock5 Capital Gains5 Addition to Income5 Section 1474 Long Term Capital Gains4 Section 142(1)3 Section 68

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 92/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

penny stock shares as per CBDT”, these were never provided to the assessee for representation of the case. There are no evidence on record to suggest that the said documents were provided to the assessee. In other words, the contentions of the learned counsel to the fact that the principles of natural justice were not complied with by the Revenue

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

YOGESH GOYAL,DHAMTARI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

HIMANSHU GOYAL,DHAMTARI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR