Search: section 68

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi26 Karnataka23 Mumbai22 Jaipur21 Ahmedabad20 Hyderabad19 Surat18 Pune10 Amritsar10 Chandigarh7 Rajkot4 Lucknow4 Indore4 Visakhapatnam3 Bangalore2 Guwahati2 Patna1 Nagpur1 SC1 Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 271F33 Section 153A9 Penalty4 Addition to Income4 Section 1393 Section 132(1)3 Section 143(3)3 Section 139(1)3 Section 271B3 Disallowance

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271BSection 271F

68,82,480/- for AY 2011-12 and (iii) Rs. 1,38,90,64,100/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,82,13,340/- for AY 2012-13. I.T.A Nos. 4, 5 & 6/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 Page No 3 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya vs. ACIT 2.2. Thereafter, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271F

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CENTARL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

CHAMPABEN NARESH LIMBANI,VILLAGE NANI KHAKHAR, TAL. MANDAVI, DIST. KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD-3, GANDHIDHAM(BHUJ-1), GANDHIDHAM