Search: penalty u/s 271

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur89 Chandigarh28 Mumbai26 Ahmedabad25 Indore23 Delhi22 Surat21 Pune21 Bangalore20 Chennai9 Jabalpur5 Cochin4 Hyderabad3 Rajkot3 Kolkata2 Allahabad2 Raipur2 Amritsar2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4 Section 2743 Section 2713 Penalty3 Section 1472 Section 682 Addition to Income2

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

U/s. 271 (l)(c) of the IT Act. 3.2 Thus the concluding para also does not specify a specific charge and it mention both the charges. The Hon. Gujarat High Court has specifically required to arrive at a charge specifically. 3.3 In view of the above it is humbly submitted that Provisions under which penalty imposable should be clearly stated

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ASHOKBHAI MAHADEVBHAI CHAVDA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR