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 2021-22 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: March 2021

B.P.Mundra > 2021 > March

Writ petition filed for quashing and setting aside of show cause Notice is dismissed since Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice and also when opportunity of filing reply personal / hearing was available. In the case of GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX by HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 185/2021 on dated Mar 3, 2021

 255 total views

 255 total views GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN INDERJEET SINGH, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 185/2021 Mar 3, 2021 Writ petition filed for quashing and setting aside of show cause Notice…
Read more

Show Cause Notice, Show Cause Notice, Writ Petition, Writ Petition

March 26, 2021

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) When purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction in AY 2014-15 already executed in the earlier years. The Revenue is debarred. ITAT- Ranchi in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi, Ranchi vs Ito,Ward-1(3), Jamshedpur on 20 January, 2020

 298 total views

 298 total views Section 56(2)(vii)(b) When purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction in AY 2014-15 already executed…
Read more

56, 56(2)(vii)(b), AY 2012-13, AY 2014-15, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Ranchi

March 24, 2021

If the assessee for bona fide reasons was unable to bring materials on record to factually prove its claim before the departmental authorities and comes forward to file additional evidences before the Tribunal to prove such fact, the assessee should not be prevented from doing so. It is in the interest of natural justice and fairplay to allow assessee to establish its claim Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai in the case of Fab Trade Private Limited, Mumbai vs Ito, Ward 15(1)(2), on 8 March, 2021.

 284 total views

 284 total views If the assessee for bona fide reasons was unable to bring materials on record to factually prove its claim before the departmental authorities and comes forward to file additional evidences before the Tribunal to prove such fact, the…
Read more

46A Rule, Additional evidence, AY 2013-14, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai, Rule 46A

March 17, 2021

Section 153A, 153C, 132(4). If no incriminating material is found during search, no addition could be made in respect of the assessments that had become final. Statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. PCIT Vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) & ORS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI on Feb 12, 2021. If any statement was to be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched (as referred to in Section 153A), then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person.

 515 total views

 515 total views Section 153A, 153C, 132(4). If no incriminating material is found during search, no addition could be made in respect of the assessments that had become final. Statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves…
Read more

132, 132(4), 153A, 153C, AY 2010-11, Delhi High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Statement, Statement under section 132(4)

March 16, 2021

Addition for accommodation entries without making any independent enquiry from the suppliers nor allowed any cross-examination of the third party though specifically demanded by the assessee-company? ITAT Ahmedabad on 8th March 2021 hold that the addition is deleted as it based on hypothesis, conjectures and suspicion. In the case of ACIT Vs. Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Section 143(3)

 286 total views

 286 total views Q.Addition for accommodation entries without making any independent enquiry from the suppliers nor allowed any cross-examination of the third party though specifically demanded by the assessee-company? ITAT Ahmedabad on 8th March 2021 hold that the addition is deleted…
Read more

143(3), Accommodation Entries, Ahmedabad Tribunal, AY 2012-13, In Favour of Assessee

March 11, 2021

Section 68 Cash deposits in the bank and AO made the addition u/s 68 instead of u/s 69, and hence the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.DIRISALA BALA MURALI vs. ITO. ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM on Jul 29, 2020. https://www.bpmundraca.com/it-cases-232-2021/

 280 total views

 280 total views Section 68 Cash deposits in the bank and AO made the addition u/s 68 instead of u/s 69, and hence the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.DIRISALA BALA MURALI vs. ITO. ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM on Jul 29, 2020…
Read more

148, 68, 69, AY 2011-12, In Favour of Assessee, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH

March 4, 2021

Categories

  • Articles (72)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (58)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (58)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (274)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • 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

    • Question: Consequences of Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT – Delhi in the case of Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-15, New Delhi on 13 May, 2022
    • Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11 May, 2022. Answer: Penalty Quashed.
    • Q Validity of 148 notice when the assessment for the same assessment year has not concluded yet? IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT DCM Shriram Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, W.P.(C) 6627/2022 & CM APPL.20136/2022 on dated 10 May, 2022
    • Supreme Court excludes the period starting from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 from limitation period of all judicial proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals. all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
    • Specimen application for waiver of penalty under Section 270A and prosecution under section 276C/276CC