Search: penalty u/s 271

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)6 Section 10(5)3 Section 55A2

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

220/- u/s. 271C of the act. 11. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty levied by the Joint CIT on the ground that section 10(5) r.w.s. 2(b) no way provides that assessee is at liberty to claim exemption out of his total package spent on overseas travel

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT