Search: section 68

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 6810 Section 143(3)8 Section 54F7 Section 234B7 Section 143(2)6 Section 234A5 Section 1954 Addition to Income4 Section 69A3

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

68 is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering that assessee has specifically objected the stamp duty value, therefore confirming addition made U/s. 56(2)(x)(b) * B of Rs. 45,40,70/- without referring matter to DVO on assumption and presumption basis is illegal

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

JASTI VENKATAPATHI RAO,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

VENKATA NARASIMHAM THOTA,KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

JIYYANA VENKATRAYUDU,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

BRANDIX APPARAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

SIVA RAMA KRISHNA RAO NUTAKKI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM