Search: condonation of delay

7 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune28 Jaipur21 Delhi15 Kolkata15 Mumbai12 Bangalore12 Chennai12 Ahmedabad12 Hyderabad7 Visakhapatnam7 Rajkot6 Cochin6 Nagpur5 Indore3 Agra3 Surat2 Amritsar2 Guwahati1 Raipur1 Chandigarh1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 271D15 Section 234E12 Penalty6 Condonation of Delay6 Section 269S5 Section 2503 Section 200A3 Section 1543 Section 246

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 226/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Section 269SS of the Act. Such failure, therefore, cannot be said to be a mere technical breach. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.46,76,000/- imposed u/s 271D of the Act is confirmed. 5.15 In the result, the grounds of appeal agitated by the appellant are dismissed.” 6. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), has carried

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

BANTU PILLI GOVINDARAO,ANANDAPURAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

NYMISH KUNDUM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR