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

Court or tribunal

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

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)
  • Incriminating material of the assessee found in the search of 3rd party then the assessment or reassessment proceeding of the assessee under which section 148 or 153C of the Income Tax Act? ITAT Delhi Bench again confirmed on Sep 17, 2021. in the case of CITY LIFE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. vs. ITO

  • No interference is required to be made in the issue of notice under old provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act extended uptill 30th day of June, 2021. The petition of the assessee is dismissed by Chhattisgarh High Court on 23/08/2021 in the case of Palak Khatuja Vs Union Of India

  • Whether a reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s Section 17(5)(h) is contemplated in relation to loss arising from manufacturing process. MADRAS HIGH COURT passed an order on the issue on 24/06/2021 and set aside the impugned order to the above extent. For full order kindly click the below link

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • Consequences when AO reopen the case only on the basis of valuation report or when no addition is made on account of reason recorded? ITAT CHANDIGARH passed the order in the case of FATEH HOMES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO ON 16.6.2021. IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IT-CASES-246-2021.

  • Section 147,148, 151. Consequences when the Ld. AO failed to provide the complete Annexures which are the basis for reopening ? The ITAT Delhi passed the order on 15 January, 2020 in the case of Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito Ward-4(3), New Delhi Order in the favour of the assessee. ITA.No.8066/Del./2019.

  • What are the consequences if Notice u/s 148 is issued before approval under section 151(1)? ITAT Ahmedabad passed the order on 4 June, 2021. in the case of OMPRAKASH KANAYALAL SHAH vs. ITO Section 147,148,151(1). https://www.bpmundraca.com/it-cases-243-2021/

Post navigation

← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Next →

Sub Categories of Court or tribunal

  • ACMM COURT BALLARD PIER MUMBAI (1)
  • Ahmedabad Tribunal (13)
  • Allahbad high court (2)
  • Bangalore Tribunal (10)
  • Bobmay High Court (9)
  • Calcutta High Court (3)
  • Chandigarh ITAT (4)
  • Chattisgarh High Court (2)
  • Cuttack ITAT (1)
  • HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH (1)
  • Income Tax settlement commission (1)
  • Indore Tribunal (3)
  • ITAT Agra (1)
  • ITAT Amritsar ‎ (2)
  • ITAT COCHIN ‎ (2)
  • ITAT CUTTACK (1)
  • ITAT Delhi (6)
  • ITAT Gauhati (1)
  • ITAT Mumbai (18)
  • ITAT Surat (3)
  • Jaipur Tribunal (6)
  • KARNATAKA High Court (1)
  • Karnataka Tribunal (0)
  • Kolkata tribunal (12)
  • LUCKNOW ITAT (2)
  • madras High Court (7)
  • Pune Tribunal (6)
  • Punjab & Hariyana High Court (1)
  • RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (2)
  • VISHAKAPATNAM TRIBUNAL (6)