Search: disallowance

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62 Chennai61 Delhi39 Bangalore36 Jaipur34 Ahmedabad12 Lucknow12 Cochin9 Hyderabad8 Raipur8 Rajkot7 Kolkata6 Panaji5 Surat4 Chandigarh3 Indore3 Visakhapatnam2 Amritsar2 Allahabad1 SC1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14818 Section 271B10 Section 69A8 Section 1478 Penalty7 Section 143(3)6 Section 142(1)6 Reopening of Assessment6 Addition to Income6 Section 133(6)

SHRI DAYALJI JAMNADAS THACKER,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-2, BHUJ-KUTCH, BHUJ-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act. The learned AR also submitted that it is the 1st year of the business of the assessee and therefore considering the same, the penalty should be waived off. 10. On the contrary, the ld. DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

SHRI DAYALJI JAMNADAS THACKER,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-2, BHUJ-KUTCH, BHUJ-KUTCH

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI DAYALJI JAMNADAS THACKER,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-2, BHUJ-KUTCH, BHUJ-KUTCH

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT