Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
    • Apply for jobs
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • Viability Research

Latest Posts

Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee

 15 total views

 15 total views 

153C, AY 2009-10, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure

July 7, 2020

Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3): ITAT JAIPUR on Jun 19, 2020 held that Even if the books f ‎accounts rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) due doubt on genuineness of the ‎purchases, the A.O. is bound to frame the assessment on best assessment as per provisions of ‎Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3). Therefore, after rejection of books of account, the A.O. is ‎required to estimate the income of the assessee on some reasonable and proper basis. Once the ‎past year results have attained finality and not in dispute, the same can form the basis for ‎estimating the GP rate for the current year. KEDIA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs. ‎ACIT. AY 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Decision in favour of Assessee

 28 total views

 28 total views Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3): ITAT JAIPUR on Jun 19, 2020 held that Even if the books f accounts rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) due doubt on genuineness of the purchases, the A.O. is bound to…
Read more

144, 145, 145(3), AY 2009-10, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, In Favour of Assessee, Jaipur Tribunal

July 1, 2020

Section 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 held that when the ‎assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the ‎requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the ‎statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Therefore the giving of notice to ‎the assessee containing the reasons and the statements or even the gist of the statements ‎to the extent relevant for the proposed action is a basic postulate. The views of the ‎noticee are to be considered by the authority before taking any decision to confirm or ‎drop the notice. A show cause notice to be effective must be adequate so as to enable a ‎party to effectively object/respond to the same. The authority concerned is obliged to ‎consider the objections, if any, and thereafter, reach a finding one way or the other. The ‎impugned order is quashed. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs PCIT. IN favour of the ‎assessee.‎

 127 total views

 127 total views     Section 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.        WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF…
Read more

127, 132(4), AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, Bobmay High Court, In Favour of Assessee

June 29, 2020

Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.

 155 total views

 155 total views Conclusion Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus…
Read more

153C, 2005-06, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure

June 10, 2020

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue; and the same principles would apply in relation to Section 80-O of the Act. Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), RAMNATH & CO. Vs CIT.

 88 total views

 88 total views THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in…
Read more

1996-97, 1997-98, 80M, AY 1993-94, AY 1994-95, AY 1995-96, deduction, Exemption, Supreme Court

June 10, 2020

Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A, Section 2(22)(e) do not apply when transactions are trading business transactions and The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets. DCIT vs. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED. AY 2013-14

 64 total views

 64 total views Para 7-Conclusion “.…Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act….” Para 8-Conclusion Section 2(22)(e) do not…
Read more

14A, 2(22)(e), 32, 48, 50C, AY 2013-14, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, In favour of Assessee (Partly)

June 8, 2020

Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.

 69 total views

 69 total views Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account. Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Pony Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) has made it clear that for…
Read more

143(3), 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, 43(1), AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal

June 8, 2020

Rule 27 of ITAT Rules :HIGH COURT OF DELHI on May 18, 2020 hold that Not having ‎filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it does not ‎mean that an inference can be drawn that the assessee had accepted the findings in part ‎of the final order, that was decided against him. Therefore, when the Revenue filed an ‎appeal before the ITAT, the assessee was entitled under law to defend the same and ‎support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. SANJAY ‎SAWHNEY vs. PCIT AY 2008-09‎

 80 total views

 80 total views Rule 27 of ITAT Rules :HIGH COURT OF DELHI on May 18, 2020 hold that Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it does not mean that an inference can…
Read more

27, AY 2008-09, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi High Court, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Rules

May 25, 2020

Section 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be ‎any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the ‎method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. Further if assessee is in the ‎business of taking land, putting up commercial building thereon, letting out such building ‎with all furniture as his profession or his business then notwithstanding the fact that he has ‎constructed building and he has also provided other facilities and even if there are two ‎separate rental deeds, it does not fall within the income from house property. CIT vs. ‎PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AY 2005-06‎

 75 total views

 75 total views Section 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department…
Read more

145, 145(3), In Favour of Assessee, KARNATAKA High Court, Method of accounting

May 23, 2020

Section 263 ITAT DELHI on May 14, 2020 Issues subject to revision u/s 263 were ‎pertaining to original assessment u/s 143(3) and not the reopened assessment u/s ‎‎147; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as ‎original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the ‎revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016. Impugned order u/s 263 ‎of the act was passed on 26/2/2019, therefore it is clearly beyond the limitation ‎prescribed u/s 263 (2) of the act. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. vs. PCIT

 45 total views

 45 total views Section 263 ITAT DELHI on May 14, 2020 Issues subject to revision u/s 263 were pertaining to original assessment u/s 143(3) and not the reopened assessment u/s 147; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In…
Read more

143(3), 147, 148, 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, AY 2009-10, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Section 263

May 23, 2020

Post navigation

1 2 3 … 36 Next →

Categories

  • Articles (40)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (53)
  • Constitution of India (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (1)
  • GST (56)
  • Income Tax (197)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (2)
  • Office system (5)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (6)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)

    • Archives

    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee
    • Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3): ITAT JAIPUR on Jun 19, 2020 held that Even if the books f ‎accounts rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) due doubt on genuineness of the ‎purchases, the A.O. is bound to frame the assessment on best assessment as per provisions of ‎Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3). Therefore, after rejection of books of account, the A.O. is ‎required to estimate the income of the assessee on some reasonable and proper basis. Once the ‎past year results have attained finality and not in dispute, the same can form the basis for ‎estimating the GP rate for the current year. KEDIA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs. ‎ACIT. AY 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Decision in favour of Assessee
    • Section 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 held that when the ‎assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the ‎requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the ‎statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Therefore the giving of notice to ‎the assessee containing the reasons and the statements or even the gist of the statements ‎to the extent relevant for the proposed action is a basic postulate. The views of the ‎noticee are to be considered by the authority before taking any decision to confirm or ‎drop the notice. A show cause notice to be effective must be adequate so as to enable a ‎party to effectively object/respond to the same. The authority concerned is obliged to ‎consider the objections, if any, and thereafter, reach a finding one way or the other. The ‎impugned order is quashed. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs PCIT. IN favour of the ‎assessee.‎
    • Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.
    • THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue; and the same principles would apply in relation to Section 80-O of the Act. Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), RAMNATH & CO. Vs CIT.