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: July 2021

B.P.Mundra > 2021 > July

Section 147, 148, 143(3). If reopening within a period of four years of assessment u/s 143(3) then there is no bar for reopening of assessment If there is certain non-disclosure. But If reopening beyond four years for assessment already in u/s 143(3) then It must be established that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material evidence with an intention to escape from the payment of tax. motive or intention on the part of the assessee for such non-disclosure is also a material ground. It is a case where the reopening beyond four years of assessment u/s 143(3) and the order of approval, which was validly granted, was produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also accepted the approval order and granted exemption. Thus, the reason stated in the impugned proceedings that the assessee committed a mistake cannot be accepted. M/S.Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. … vs ACIT Madras High Court … on 16 June, 2021

 285 total views

 285 total views Madras High Court M/S.Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. … vs ACIT… on 16 June, 2021 W.P.No.43662 of 2016 Conclusion Section 147, 148, 143(3). If reopening within a period of four years of assessment u/s 143(3) then there is no…
Read more

143(3), 147, 148, AY 2009-10, madras High Court

July 26, 2021

Since books of account were not rejected, therefore, provisions of section 69B were wrongly invoked by AO. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma on dated 12 October, 2017

 181 total views

 181 total views 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Since books of account were not rejected, therefore, provisions of section 69B were wrongly invoked by AO. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar…
Read more

69B, AY 2008-09, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

July 24, 2021

In E-Assessment order demand is raised without providing an opportunity by issue of show cause notice? Assessment void. In the case of RMSI PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C) 6482/2021 & CM APPL. 20366/2021 on dated Jul 14, 2021 Section 143(3), 144B(9) AY 2017-18

 355 total views

 355 total views RMSI PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE HIGH COURT OF DELHI MANMOHAN & NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ. W.P.(C) 6482/2021 & CM APPL. 20366/2021 Jul 14, 2021 Section 143(3), 144B(9) AY 2017-18 Decision in favour of: Assessee In E-Assessment order…
Read more

143(3), 144B(9), 2019, Clause 5 (1) (viii), Clause 5 (x), E-Assessment Scheme

July 21, 2021

Even if the petitioner was not present before the Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing, it could not have been dismissed. Dismissal of appeals by ITAT for non-persecution is wholly illegal and unjustified. Rule 24 of the 1963 Rules does not give power to the learned Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT in the case of Rabindra Kumar Mohanty v. Registrar, ITAT W.P.(C) No. 2487 of 2019 on dated 18 March, 2020. Section 254 IT Act and Rule 24 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

 273 total views

 273 total views Section 254 IT Act and Rule 24 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT C.R. DASH & S.K. PANIGRAHI, JJ. Rabindra Kumar Mohanty v. Registrar, ITAT W.P.(C) No. 2487 of 2019 18 March, 2020…
Read more

Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, Rule 24

July 20, 2021

Income Tax Slabs 2021 & Tax Rates for FY 2020-21

 189 total views

 189 total views income tax rates for FY 2021-22

Articles

July 13, 2021

Gift deed format

 117 total views

 117 total views CONFIRMATION OF GIFT I, Shri ,,., S/o.,, Aged 48 years R/o ……..r. do here by state on oath as under: – That my PAN No. is ,… That I am Prop. of ………../service at…. That Mr…………. s/o…….Aged …….
Read more

Articles, Format

July 10, 2021

Receipt of Software license amounting to Rs.86,05,13,407/- cannot be charged to tax as ‘Royalties’ under the DTAA. In the same manner, the amount will escape taxation as ‘Business profits’ under Article 7 also because of it not having any PE in India. Albeit Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) is applicable to the year under consideration, but section 90(2) of Act states that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1), then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. ANSYS INC. vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONL TAXATION) ITAT PUNE Jun 15, 2021 Section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12 of India-US DTAA. AY 2009-10 & 2014-15.Decision in favour of: Assessee

 166 total views

 166 total views Receipt of Software license amounting to Rs.86,05,13,407/- cannot be charged to tax as ‘Royalties’ under the DTAA. In the same manner, the amount will escape taxation as ‘Business profits’ under Article 7 also because of it not having…
Read more

9(1)(vi), Article 12 of India-US DTAA

July 2, 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