Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 139(8)

Sec. 139(8), Section 217, Section 273A

Bombay H.C : The petitioner filed a petition on 4th May, 1988 under s. 273A for waiver of interest charged and for waiver of penalties and restricted the same only for years 1983 to 1986

Avijit Das / August 22, 2008

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur BenchÂ Smt. Prakashkumari vs. CIT Section 139(8), 217, 273A Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 […]

Section 139, Sec. 139(8), Section 217, Section 273A

Bombay H.C : The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 28th Dec., 1995 passed by the CIT, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, whereby the interest under s. 139(8) and penalty under s. 217

Avijit Das / August 12, 2008

High Court Of Bombay Vasantbhai Jethalal Lathiwala vs. CIT : Nagpur Bench Section 139(8), 217, 273A Asst. Year 1984-85 to

Section 139, Sec. 139(8), Sec. 271(1)(a), Section 273A

Bombay H.C : the interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act (for short ‘Act’) and penalties under s. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1989-90 have been retained though prayed for waiving the same

Avijit Das / August 7, 2008

High Court Of Bombay, Nagpur Bench Madhuri vs. CIT & Anr. Section 139(8), 271(1)(a), 273A Asst. Year 1985-86 to 1989-90

Sec. 139(8), Section 217

Madras H.C : the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit of exemption under s. 80P(2)

Avijit Das / March 12, 2007

High Court Of Madras Kanchipuram Silk Handloom Weaversâ€™ Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. vs. CIT & ORS. Section 139(8), 217, Rule

Sec. 139(8), Section 217

Delhi H.C : AO rejected the application of petitioner and refused to waive interest under r. 40(1) of IT Rules, 1962 and under r. 117A of IT Rules, 1962 and praying for quashing of these orders

Avijit Das / June 2, 2006

High Court Of Delhi R.C. Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer Sections 139(8), 217, Rule 40(v), Rule 117A(v) Asst. Years 1985-86,

Sec. 139(8), Section 139, Section 147, Section 217

reassessment proceedings were rightly initiated for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and the ITO was not seized of the information relating to acquisition of house property, although the same was reflected in wealth-tax records for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and when that records were available when original assessment under IT Act was made

Avijit Das / April 19, 2006

High Court Of Karnataka N.M. Vishwanath vs. CIT Sections 139(8), 147(a), 217 Asst. Year 1972-73 P. Vishwanatha Shetty & N.

Sec. 139(8), Sec. 254(1), Section 148, Section 2, Section 217

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal, was in law justified in rejecting the additional grounds challenging the validity of assessment order on the basis of illegal initiation of proceedings under s. 148 without complying the provision of s. 148(2) ?

Avijit Das / May 10, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad Abdul Majid vs. CIT Sections 2(40), 139(8), 148(2), 217, 254(1) Asst. Year 1981-82 R.K. Agrawal &

Sec. 139(8), Section 139

Punjab & Haryana H.C : In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt. 6th March, 1981 (Annexure P2), passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dt. 25th Feb., 1996, of respondent No. 2 upholding the order of respondent No. 1 passed under r. 117A of the IT Rules, 1962, r/w s. 139(8) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Avijit Das / May 14, 2003

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Leader Engineering Works vs. ITO & Anr. Sections 139(8), Rule 117A Asst. Year 1974-75

Sec. 139(8), Section 273, Section 273A

Allahabad H.C : The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the CIT under s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 19th July, 1984, annexure 2 to the petition. In this petition we are only concerned with the claim of waiver of interest under s. 139(8) which has been denied by the CIT.

Avijit Das / December 11, 2002

High Court Of Allahabad Kailash Mills vs. CIT Section 139(8), 273A(1)(c) M. Katju & Yatindra Singh, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ

Sec. 139(8), Sec. 256(2), Section 217, Section 256

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling interest charged under s. 139(8) and under s. 217 at the time of framing assessment under ss. 143(3) and 147 by holding that Expln. 2 to s. 139(8) is not applicable ?

Avijit Das / May 31, 2002

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Inderjeet Bedi Sections 139(8), 217, 256(2) Asst. Year 1985-86 Jawahar Lal Gupta

Post pagination

1 2 … 4 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top