Search: penalty u/s 271

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 14412 Section 5712 Section 271(1)(c)6 Section 44A4 Penalty4 Section 2502 Section 249(4)2 Section 1482 Section 143(3)2

SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessing officer in the assessee’s case in the quantum proceeding has made addition in respect of the exempt income received by the assessee for doing the agriculture activities, and the assessee has explained

SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SANJAYKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PAN (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR