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: August 2021

B.P.Mundra > 2021 > August

Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C

 262 total views

 262 total views ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ N. V. VASUDEVAN, VP & B. R. BASKARAN, AM. ITA No. 926/Bang/2015, 928 & 929/Bang/2015, 930 & 931/Bang/2015 Jul 30,…
Read more

132, 153C, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, Bangalore Tribunal, borrowed satisfaction, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Other person, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure

August 10, 2021

Q.Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is justified after amendments in Explanation 5 of the section 43B.

 294 total views

 294 total views Q.Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of…
Read more

36(1)(va), 43B, Articles

August 3, 2021

Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is justified after amendmends in Explanation 5 of the section 43B. The ITAT- Kolkata in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir. 29, Kolkata on 16 July, 2021 ITA No.186/Kol/2021 decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

 205 total views

 205 total views Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Kolkata Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir. 29, Kolkata on 16 July, 2021 ITA No.186/Kol/2021 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ)…
Read more

36(1)(va), 43B, AY 2019-20, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal

August 3, 2021

Categories

  • 2002 (1)
  • Articles (74)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (58)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (1)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (293)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • 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

    • 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
    • 48th GST Council recommendation. Very useful to note
    • Q: Can income tax officer order for Provisional attachment of cash, bank, any property belonging to the assessee? HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT passed the order on dated 29/11/2022.
    • Question Whether van rent received and paid by the educational institute appearing in both side of income of expenditure account will be counted for calculating turnover of the assessee to allow the benefit U/s 10(23C) of the Act. ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR passed the order on 10.8.2022 in thc case of Baba Farid Public Welfare Society vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward, Amritsar
    • Bail can be granted in PMLA cases on the ground of serious medical condition. there is no longer rigor of said two conditions under the Original Section 45(1)(ii) of the PML Act for releasing the petitioner on bail.On filing SLP by the department, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on dated date 20.10.2022 Imposed cost of Rs. 1 lac holding as it is unnecessary SLP. Section 45(1)(ii)