Search: house property

11 results for “house property”+ Section 245Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad44 Mumbai37 Delhi19 Kolkata15 Jaipur12 Visakhapatnam11 Indore10 Bangalore6 Chandigarh6 Chennai3 SC2 Pune2 Varanasi2 Lucknow2 Kerala1 Jodhpur1 Raipur1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 132(4)27 Addition to Income11 Section 153A10 Section 1326 Limitation/Time-bar6 Section 143(3)5

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 201/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

245D(2C) of the Act treated the assessee’s application as invalid and held it is not allowable, since, the application was found to be not constituting the full and true disclosure of income. Consequently, assessment proceedings were revived by the AO and the assessee has filed the writ petition on 14.02.2019 before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, , GUTNUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR