Search: disallowance

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63 Bangalore54 Delhi50 Kolkata34 Ahmedabad23 Jaipur12 Chandigarh10 Chennai8 Lucknow7 Panaji5 Rajkot4 Ranchi3 Hyderabad2 Cuttack2 Pune2 Raipur2 SC1 Nagpur1 Agra1 Visakhapatnam1 Surat1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 4020 Section 194C5 Deduction4 TDS4 Disallowance4 Section 194H3 Section 194C(5)3 Addition to Income3 Section 194A2

RAJESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI JAVIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 312/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: None (Witten Submission)For Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra, Sr.DR

Section 194HSection 40

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section

RAJESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI JAVIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

M/S MARUTINANDAN CONSTRUCTION,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

RAJESHBHAI CHIMANBHAI JAVIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

M/S MARUTINANDAN CONSTRUCTION,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

VIPULKUMAR HEMANTLAL POPAT, UPLETA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

BHARAT NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT