Search: penalty u/s 271

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 50C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai61 Delhi55 Ahmedabad26 Jaipur20 Surat10 Lucknow10 Agra9 Dehradun7 Hyderabad6 Indore6 Chennai6 Visakhapatnam6 Bangalore6 Pune4 Chandigarh4 Kolkata3 Nagpur3 Rajkot3 Jodhpur2 Allahabad2 Jabalpur1 Raipur1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)23 Section 50C15 Section 1486 Penalty5 Capital Gains5 Section 142(1)4 Section 143(3)3 Section 143(2)3 Section 144

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

penalty of Rs. 2,82,897/- levied by the AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the provisions of section 50C

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

VIJAYRATNA VEERA KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

CHIGURUPATI RAJENDRA PRASAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM