Search: penalty u/s 271

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80P(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi28 Mumbai25 Bangalore23 Amritsar12 Visakhapatnam11 Jaipur11 Cochin10 Ahmedabad9 Chandigarh9 Pune8 Varanasi6 Lucknow5 Nagpur4 Chennai2 Rajkot2 Surat2 Kolkata2 Guwahati1 Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12 Section 143(3)4 Section 143(2)2 Section 2712 Deduction2 Penalty2 TDS2 Disallowance2 Addition to Income2

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

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

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

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

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