Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Vimal Pukhraj Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Vimal Pukhraj Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Multiple Notices in Short Span + Covid Hospitalisation = Reasonable Cause: ITAT Deletes Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d)- Penalty Cannot Be Mechanical: ITAT Mumbai Quashes ₹50,000 Levy Assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) wherein penalty of ₹50,000 levied u/s 272A(1)(d) was confirmed for alleged non-compliance to statutory notices. Assessee contended that delay in filing appeal of 807 days was due to genuine & bonafide reasons, as the accountant handling tax matters had left the job & new accountant later discovered that...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a 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

10-Year Silence & Uncancelled GPA: SC Upholds Sale Against Fraud Claims Section 271D Penalty Cannot Survive After Reassessment Itself is Quashed: Mumbai ITAT Unsigned Affidavit Cannot End Appeal: ITAT Says CIT(A) Must Allow Assessee to Cure Technical Defects Death of Assessee & Missing Records: Mumbai ITAT Limits Bogus Purchase Addition to 8% Profit Element AO Cannot Tax Entire Sale Consideration as Capital Gain Without Allowing Cost of TDR: Bangalore ITAT 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Your email address will not be published.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
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031