Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 271B

Sec. 44AB, Section 271B, Section 273B

Uttarakhand H.C : Where it was not within assessee’s domain to have auditor appointed by registrar or State Government to complete audit within specified date, no penalty under section 271B should be imposed on assessee

Avijit Das / May 31, 2013

High Court Of Uttarakhand CIT vs. Iqbalpur Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. Section : 44AB, 271B, 273B Barin Ghosh, Cj. […]

Section 268A, Sec. 260A, Section 271B

Gauhati H.C : The penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when it was mandatory to get the accounts audited under section 33B of the said Act, even if the books of account have not been properly maintained

Avijit Das / May 8, 2013

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. Jugal Kishore Mahanta Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 268A, 260A I.A. Ansari And

Section 271B, Sec. 44AB

Madras H.C : The Assessing Officer had appreciated the reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining the audit report under section 44AB and consciously condoned the delay and, therefore, not initiated penalty under section 271B

Avijit Das / June 15, 2011

High Court Of Madras Lakshmi Card Clothing Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. VS. DCIT Assessment Year : 1988-89 Section : 271B,

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The true interpretation of the provision of the Act the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271B for delayed filing of the audit report in response to the proceedings u/s 148 and before the completion of the assessment

Avijit Das / September 28, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Jasbir Singh vs. CIT, Patiala Assessment Year 1991-92 Section : 271B Adarsh Kumar Goel

Sec. 44AB, Section 264, Section 271B

Bombay H.C : The petitioner was subjected to a penalty under s. 271B for the aforesaid four assessment years

Avijit Das / June 29, 2010

High Court Of Bombay S.V. Pathak & Company vs. N.C. Tiwari, Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Section 44AB, 264,

Sec. 44AB, Section 271B, Section 273B

Allahabad H.C : The assessee benefit of ‘reasonable cause’ for the delay in preventing it from complying with the provisions of section 44AB

Avijit Das / April 26, 2010

High Court Of Allahabad CIT VS. U.P. Rajya Sahkari Evam Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Assessment Year : 1990-91 Section :

Section 44, Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B

Allahabad H.C : There was a reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as no accounts were maintained, and thus the assessee could not be penalised both under ss. 271A and 271B of the IT Act, whereas the assessee being a contractor having total receipts from contract work at Rs. 1,24,69,486 has failed to maintain books of account and has not got his accounts audited under s. 44AB of the IT Act. Thereafter, the assessee has violated the provisions contained in both the sections and he is liable for penal action both under ss. 271A and 271B

Avijit Das / September 10, 2009

High Court Of Allahabad CIT & ANR. vs. S.K. Gupta & Co. Section 44AB, 271A, 271B Asst. Year 1990-91 R.K.

Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B, Section 273B, Section 44

Gujarat H.C : It is not the gross amount of advances made during the year which constituted turnover but the gross interest received which constitute the basis for liability under s. 44AB

Avijit Das / March 4, 2009

High Court Of Gujarat ITO vs. Sachinam Trust Section 44AB, 271B, 273B Asst. Year 1992-93 D.A. Mehta & S.R. Brahmbhatt,

Sec. 2(12A), Sec. 275(1)(c), Sec. 44AB, Section 271B, Section 275

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty under s. 271B for the asst. yr. 1991-92 are barred by limitation as per the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / September 23, 2008

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. S.C. Naregal Section 2(12A), 44AB, 271B, 275(1)(c) Asst. Year 1990-91, 1991-92 to

Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is imposable under s. 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under s. 139 nor on a notice under s. 142 of the Act ?

Avijit Das / July 8, 2008

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. Section 44AB, 271B Asst. Year 1994-95 K. Raviraja Pandian &

Post pagination

1 2 … 5 Next →

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

Scroll to Top