income Tax Officer Vs. Kuldeep Sood Enterprises

Decided On : Apr-20-2006

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

LAW: the IT Act, Section 147, Section 148, Section 271(1)(c, the Chandigarh Bench, Section 271(1)(c, Section 271(1)(c, Section 271(1)(c, The Chandigarh Bench, Section 271(1)(c, the Chandigarh Bench, the Amritsar Bench

CARDINAL: 1, 1., 2,96,340, 2, 3., 2,96,340, 2, 3, 9, 7, 20 and 21, 21, 9, 11-19, 14, 10, 2,59,700, 80,000, 8,22,450, 3,38,000, 3,85,930, 2,96,340, 528, One, two, 90, 4,380, 2,60,190, 27, 109, 94, 513

ORDINAL: 18th, first

DATE: Sept., 2002, 1961, 1981, 30th Sept., 1989, 916964, 8th Feb., 1988, 16th May, 1991, the same year, the next year, 17th Oct., 2000, 2004, 2005, 2005

PERSON: Ludhiana, Nos, Shri Sudhir, K.P. Madhusudhanan v., Hukamchand Shankarlal, Addl, Ludhiana, Haryana, K.P. Madhusudanan v., P.M. Shah, 767 Ed, wherein, Raunak Ram Nand Lal, Mandi Dabwali v. ITO

ORG: AO, AO, off.2, AO, Preeti Garg, Departmental Representative, Counsel for the Revenue, AO, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Reliance, Tribunal, Vishwakarma Industries, CIT, CIT, M/s, Globe Engineering Works, AO, M/s Globe Engineering Works, M/s Metro Footwear, M/s Metro Footwear, AO, Tribunal, M/s, Reliance, CWT, Ananthamm Veeiasinghaiah &amp, Co., CIT, CIT, Sadiq M &, Bros. Counsel, AO, AO, State Bank of India, M/s, M/s, AO, M/s, Department, Tribunal, M/s, AO, Tribunal, AO, Departmental Representative, Vishawkarma Industries, CIT, The Hon'ble Court, Explanation, Reliance, CIT, The Hon'ble Court, CIT, CWT, CIT, Sadiq Ali &amp, Bros, Hindustan Steels Ltd., K.C. Builders, Asstt, CIT, CIT, K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty, CIT v. Skyline Auto Products, Tribunal, AO, Tribunal, Durga, TTJ, Chd, AO, AO, Reliance, Hon'ble apex Court, High Courts, Reliance, CIT, TTJ

GPE: pp, Bombay, Kerala, Hukamchand, Shankerlal, Orissa, Jt, India

MONEY: 20 per cent, 100 per cent

PERCENT: less than eighty percent

NORP: Hon'ble, Hon'ble, Hon'ble

PRODUCT: ITO ITA

WORK_OF_ART: Chd).The Hon'ble Bench