Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Jindal Polyester & Steel Ltd. (Allahabad High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

CA Sandeep Kanoi

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) in spite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer or before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) for claiming excess depreciation than admissible under Income Tax Act and Explanation I to Section 271(1)(C) clearly states that where in respect of any facts material to the com

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

A Blogger by Passion and a Chartered Accountant by Profession. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

No adverse GST Order Without Personal Hearing: Allahabad HC Canara Bank Wins ITAT Appeal: Section 115JB Not Applicable Bombay HC Declares Assessment Order Invalid for Exceeding Section 144C(13) Deadline Section 115JB not applicable to banking companies: ITAT Bangalore Bombay HC Criticizes ITAT for Delayed Order, Restores Rectification Plea View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930