Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Gajanfar Ali Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Gajanfar Ali Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)

Penalty Package Broken: Six Defaults Under 142(1): ITAT Says Only First One Valid—₹50,000 Penalty Deleted- Major Penalties Sent Back- Trims 271(1)(b) & Cut Down to ₹10,000 Only

Assessee filed three appeals challenging penalties: ₹60,000 u/s 271(1)(b) for six non-compliances, ₹25,000 u/s 271A for failure to maintain books & ₹5,01,260 u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals in limine citing delay of 139 days without condonation.

Before Tribunal, AR pleaded for

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

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Assessment on Amalgamated Company Held Void for Lack of Jurisdiction Penalty for Non-Compliance Deleted as Venial Breach Where Assessments Accepted Returned Income Carbon Credit Sale Treated as Capital Receipt, Not Taxable Income Search Assessments Quashed for Lack of Prior U/s 153D Approval Documented and Repaid Unsecured Loans Cannot Be Treated as Accommodation Entries u/s 68 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031