Search: penalty u/s 271

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 201(1)11 Section 271C9 Section 2(22)(e)8 Section 271(1)(c)8 Section 1946 Penalty4 TDS4 Section 10(5)3 Section 2012 Section 143(3)

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act separately.” 9. The ld Counsel pointed out that during the penalty proceedings, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessing officer has levied the penalty on both the limbs, that is, (i) concealment of income as well as (ii) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that

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

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

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

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS- 2,, SURAT

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE JCIT, T.D.S. RANGE,, SURAT