Search: penalty u/s 271

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

u/s 271(1)(c) to any other person who might have helped him in the matter of preparation of the return and drawing the statement of income. It was further held : "\005This is very strange way of valuing the land after first arriving at the value of the building and deducting therefrom the value of the superstructure instead of directly

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

C.A. No.-004278-004278 - 2010Supreme Court07 May 2010

Section 260

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD