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

Monthly Archive: March 2020

B.P.Mundra > 2020 > March

Calcutta High Court on 4th march, 2020 publication date 24th March, 2020 held that since the provisional Attachment u/s 83 of GST Act is ‎reprehensible and absolutely contrary to law the respondent authorities are directed ‎to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the three petitioners. ‎

 11 total views

 11 total views Calcutta High Court  held that since the provisional Attachment u/s 83 of GST Act is reprehensible and absolutely contrary to law the respondent authorities are directed to pay costs of  Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the three…
Read more

‎83, Article 19(1)

March 25, 2020

#Penny_Stock ITAT CHENNAI on Mar 4, 2020 hold that the A O shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual, genuine etc. The assessee shall comply with the A.O’s requirements as per law. The Assessing Officer shall also bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc. as had been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Aravind Nandial Khatri Vs. I.T.O referred to supra.

 8 total views

 8 total views #Penny_Stock ITAT CHENNAI on Mar 4, 2020 hold that the A O shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned…
Read more

10(38), AY 2015-16, CHENNAI ITAT

March 24, 2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Hence the Ld. AO cannot mechanically apply the provisions of Section 143(1-A) after issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

 20 total views

 20 total views SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the…
Read more

143(1-A), 143(1), 143(1)(a), Supreme Court

March 24, 2020

ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015.

 11 total views

 11 total views ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015.   M/S.OSWAL COMPUTERS & AMP CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AND…
Read more

234E, AY 2013-14, Indore Tribunal

March 24, 2020

ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO

 11 total views

 11 total views ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether…
Read more

271(1)(c), 271(1)(c), AY 2009-10, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c), penalty proceeding/s 271(1)(c) pending

March 24, 2020

ITAT LUCKNOW ने Mar 19, 2020 को फेसला दिया कि रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14) में आती है तो कोई टैक्स नहीं लगेगा।

 8 total views

 8 total views रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14)…
Read more

2(14), AY 2011-12, LUCKNOW ITAT

March 24, 2020

BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings will have to be restored to the stage of show cause notice.

 4 total views

 4 total views BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and…
Read more

Bobmay High Court, GST

March 23, 2020

ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not acceptable. The claim is required to be proven to be illegitimate by providing all relevant documents to establish sound financial of alledged companies and that fluctuation in price was market driven and to establish genuineness of sale and purchase of alledged scripts

 9 total views

 9 total views ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not…
Read more

Bangalore Tribunal, Penny stock

March 20, 2020

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice

 7 total views

 7 total views MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY  2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai

March 18, 2020

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that to make addition in Section 69C it is postulated that source of expenditure incurred not found satisfactory by Ld. AO. When purchases were reversed by the assessee in subsequent years and the transactions of purchases as well as sales were stated to be mere paper entries. The such stock purchased was reflected in closing stock. Thus it is circular transactions and are mere paper entries and no addition can be made u/s 69C.

 9 total views

 9 total views MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY  2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai

March 18, 2020

Post navigation

1 2 3 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 (196)
  • 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

    • 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.
    • 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