Search: section 68

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 271bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai66 Mumbai46 Jaipur37 Hyderabad28 Karnataka21 Ahmedabad20 Kolkata17 Rajkot15 Pune12 Indore11 Delhi11 Bangalore9 Surat8 Dehradun8 Cochin7 Chandigarh4 Lucknow4 Patna3 Nagpur2 SC2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26327 Section 14810 Section 143(3)6 Section 153C6 Section 2505 Section 1445 Section 271B5 Section 271(1)(c)5 Penalty5 Addition to Income

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

271B ( in all three AYs), the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee made declaration under IDS, the provisions of section 271D are not applicable. On merits it is submitted that the assessee did not take any loan and therefore the provisions of section 271D are not applicable. The amount involved was booking advances

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), SURAT

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT, SURAT

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(3), SURAT

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT