Search: penalty u/s 271

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi26 Mumbai14 Jaipur13 Ahmedabad9 Chennai7 Indore7 Patna6 Lucknow4 Visakhapatnam3 Pune3 Kolkata3 Surat2 Hyderabad2 Nagpur2 Bangalore1 Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 50C4 Capital Gains3 Section 143(3)2 Section 1542 Section 143(2)2 Section 1442 Section 54F2 Condonation of Delay2

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 237/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed ex-parte order since there is no response on behalf

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

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

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

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