Search: disallowance

38 results for “disallowance”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)42 Section 143(3)30 Addition to Income23 Section 271(1)(c)16 Deduction12 Disallowance12 Section 2508 Section 14A7 Section 54F6 Section 194A(3)(v)

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1830/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

Section 14ASection 254(1)

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara dated 29.04.2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

ALIDHARA TEXSPIN ENGINEERS,DADRA UT OF D & NH vs. THE ACIT., VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

ARMAAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR. 1(1)(1), SURAT

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

SHRI DIVYAKANT L PANARA,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ITO, WARD-2,, NAVSARI