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 job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2022-23 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

Monthly Archive: April 2020

B.P.Mundra > 2020 > April

Supreme court on 24th April, 2020 held that clause (f) in Section 43B of the 1961 Act is ‎constitutionally valid and therefore any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of ‎any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable only on actual payment. Division Bench ‎of High Court at Calcutta order is reversed.‎

 323 total views

 323 total views     “…..the insertion of clause (f) has not extinguished the autonomy of the assessee to follow the mercantile system. It merely defers the benefit of deduction to be availed by the assessee for the purpose of computing…
Read more

43B, 43B(f), In favour of Revenue, Supreme Court

April 28, 2020

ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as 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. ADMAN ADVERTISING vs ACIT

 221 total views

 221 total views ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been…
Read more

271(1)(c), AY 2010-11, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c)

April 28, 2020

During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- the demand notice. Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government, a period of two weeks reckoned therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent.

 345 total views

 345 total views During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders  under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,…
Read more

201(1)(1A), AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, Delhi, Delhi High Court, Demand, In Favour of Assessee

April 28, 2020

आयकर छापे व सर्वे-कैसे बचे या पड़ जाए तो कैसे सामना करें

 723 total views

 723 total views आयकर छापे व सर्वे- Please click the link to see the video ‎1.‎ आयकर छापे व सर्वे का मुख्य उद्देश्य आयकर की चोरी को पकड़ना या ‎चोरी को रोकना है ‎ a.‎ आयकर का छापा पड़ने का मुख्य…
Read more

Articles

April 26, 2020

ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble ‎Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the ‎address in data base of the IT Department by submitting timely prescribed application.‎

 278 total views

 278 total views ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the address in…
Read more

143(2), 147, 148, 282, 49A, AY 2009-10, ITAT Amritsar ‎

April 25, 2020

Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT ‎Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish ‎the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP ‎addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, ‎which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did ‎not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use ‎the books of accounts for this purpose.‎ Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO

 318 total views

 318 total views SC-Section 68-271(1)(c)-GP Rate-addition   Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials….
Read more

144, 145(3), 271(1)(c), 44AB, 68, AY 1998-99, penalty 271(1)(c), Supreme Court, unexplained cash credit

April 25, 2020

ITAT Delhi on 31st jan; 2019 held that CIT(A) could not enhance income of assessee on ‎altogether ‘new Source’.‎ before submitting your written submission kindly read carefully the notes and read case laws mentioned.

 300 total views

 300 total views ITAT Delhi on 31st jan; 2019 held that CIT(A) could not enhance income of assessee on altogether ‘new Source’. HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘E’…
Read more

147, 148, 151, 151(1)(a), 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, 54F, AY 2014-15, In Favour of Assessee, Matter remanded

April 22, 2020

ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and recorded reasons which are vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction.

 249 total views

 249 total views ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind…
Read more

147, AY 2011-12, bogus, borrowed satisfaction, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal, Reason recorded, Satisfaction

April 20, 2020

What are the consequences when the notice u/s 143(2) served without examining the return filed in compliance of notice.? The answer is given by ITAT DELHI on 20 February, 2020 in the case of ‎Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO- IT-CASES-203-2020. Assessment quashed.

 312 total views

 312 total views ITAT DELHI on 20 February, 2020 held that the provisions of s. 143(2) make it clear that the notice can only be served after the assessing officer has examined the return filed by the assessee. Whereas it is…
Read more

143(2), 143(3), 148, Authority, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, H.S. SIDHU, In Favour of Assessee, J.M.‎

April 18, 2020

Section 147, 132 Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating ‎material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the ‎assessee, also no such transaction is with third party then in the absence of any other ‎independent material to corroborate the statement of third party no addition can be made.‎ it-cases-205-2020

 316 total views

 316 total views Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the assessee, also no…
Read more

132, 143(3), 147, 68, AY 2006-07, Gujrat High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material

April 18, 2020

Post navigation

1 2 3 Next →

Categories

  • 1860 (1)
  • 1956 (1)
  • 1973 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • Articles (77)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (59)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (0)
  • Companies Act (2)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (294)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Indian Penal Code (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • कंपनीज की ऑडिट करने वाले कृपया ध्यान दें, अगर ऑडिट रिपोर्ट में इन्वेस्टमेंट के बारे में प्रॉपर्ली डिस्क्लोज नहीं किया तो सीए को पेनल्टी लगेगी इसी प्रकार कोई भी डिस्क्लोजर बाकी रह गया तो पेनल्टी लगेगी-Penalty u/s Section 450 or Failure to disclose properly in an audit report details of current investment by virtue of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013
    • Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?
    • Consequence when there is a delay of only 41 minutes in delivering the consignment and the Adjudicating Authority passed the order of creating Demand of Tax and Penalty of Rs.19,52,542/-
    • Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order.
    • Q: Whether outstanding demand from a company can be recovered u/s 179 from the director of the company without pointing out that non-recovery was on account of gross negligent, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of the Director in relation to the affairs of the company? The answer was given by The Hon’ble High Court Of Gujarat on dated 16.12.2022