Search: penalty u/s 271

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi70 Mumbai57 Hyderabad37 Bangalore31 Chennai12 Kolkata11 Jaipur9 Lucknow7 Pune6 Indore6 Cuttack4 Ahmedabad3 Visakhapatnam2 Allahabad2 Jodhpur2 Cochin2 Chandigarh2 Patna2 Dehradun1 Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 92B(1)3 Section 143(3)2 Section 143(1)2 Section 143(2)2 Section 92E2 Section 92C2

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 225/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. Suvibha Nolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

10B of the IT Rules, 1962 and thus the Ld. TPO worked out the ALP to 2% for the corporate guarantee of above Rs. 10 Crs. Accordingly, the Ld. TPO computed the corporate guarantee at Rs. 1,24,27,379/- and made the adjustment u/s. 92CA of the Act. The Ld. TPO also made addition

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY