Search: penalty u/s 271

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi59 Bangalore29 Mumbai17 Jaipur15 Indore9 Ahmedabad9 Visakhapatnam6 Jabalpur6 Rajkot5 Pune4 Nagpur3 Jodhpur2 Surat2 Raipur2 Kolkata2 Hyderabad1 Agra1 Dehradun1 Chennai1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271C7 Section 271(1)(c)6 Section 10(5)3 Penalty2 TDS2

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