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 2020-21 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

Bangalore Tribunal

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > Court or tribunal > Bangalore Tribunal

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)
  • क्या होगा जब कोई चैरिटेबल ऑर्गनाइजेशन को 148 का नोटिस इस आधार पर मिलता है कि करदाता धारा 11 और 12 की छूट का अधिकारी 12AA मिलने के पहले के एसेसमेंट ईयर के लिए नहीं है? Nov 26, 2020 को ITAT BANGALORE ने second proviso to sec.12A(2) का हवाला देकर ऑर्डर पास किया है KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND vs ITO.

  • क्या होगा जब पुन: कर निर्धारण के लिए धारा 148 का नोटिस गलत जगह भेजकर आईटीओ रिअसेसमेंट कर दे। 6 नवंबर 2020 को आईटीआई बेंगलुरु ने DIVYA S RAO vs. आईटीओ

  • If the Notice u/s 143(2) issued by Income tax Officer was having no Jurisdiction at the ‎time of issue of the notice then this is not a valid notice as it suffers from an inherent ‎lacuna affecting his / its jurisdiction. It is not a curable defect u/s 292BB. The consequent ‎order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null ‎in the eyes of law and therefore quashed. ITO vs Mr.P N Krishnamurthy ITAT ‎Bangalore on 27 April, 2020‎.

  • Section 54 BANGALORE ITAT Decision on 8.5.2020: The deduction u/s 54 of the Act ‎should not be denied merely because the name of assessee’s husband is mentioned in the ‎purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from the assessee. ‎Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs ACIT AY 2016-17‎

  • ITAT Banglore on 13th December, 2019 Penny Stock-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. Remanded. Ramesh Chand Kothari (Huf) vs ITO AY 2015-16

  • 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

  • ITAT Bangalore on Mar 13, 2020 hold that For reopening an assessment, the Assessing ‎Officer cannot consider the information which is already on record and it should be from ‎outside sources.

  • BANGALORE TRIBUNAL on 4.6.2019 held that 271(1)(c) – non strike of limb in SCN-No penalty can be imposed. DESAI AND COMPANY vs. DCIT

Sub Categories of Bangalore Tribunal

  • No categories