Latest Posts

How to face efficiently Income Tax Search & Seizure

How to face efficiently Income Tax Search & Seizure 1. We should understand that the sole objective of income tax raid is to unearth tax avoidance. Generally it leads to chaos and vacuity as it is incredulous and any unexpected…
Read more

Articles, incriminating material, Search, Seizure

August 22, 2020

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 1 अगस्त 2017 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि आयकर छापे के दौरान धारा 132 4 में लिए गए स्टेटमेंट अपने आप में incriminating material नहीं है केवल इस आधार पर ना तो assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 A हो सकता है और ना ही कोई एडिशन किया जा सकता है.PCIT vs.BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. IT-CASES-208-2020

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 1 अगस्त 2017 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि आयकर छापे के दौरान धारा 132 4 में लिए गए स्टेटमेंट अपने आप में incriminating material नहीं है केवल इस आधार पर ना तो assumption of jurisdiction u/s…
Read more

132, 132(4), 153A, AY 2005-06, AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi High Court, High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Search and seizure, Statement, Statement under section 132(4)

August 20, 2020

Section 10(13A), Rule 2A(h)‘Performance bonus’ does not form part of ‘salary’ as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of section 10(13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sudip Rungta v. Dy. CIT held on 10 January, 2020

Section 10(13A), Rule 2A(h). ‘Performance bonus’ does not form part of ‘salary’ as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of section 10(13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sudip Rungta v. Dy. CIT held on 10 January,…
Read more

10(13A), In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal, Rule 2A, Rule 2A(h)

August 18, 2020

80G Requirements

B.P.Mundra & Co. Chartered Accountants Mundra House, A 822, Shivaji Nagar, Civil Lines, Adjoining Hawa Sadak, 22 Godown Bridge, Jaipur-302 001 Dial 2370113, 2225110, 2225116, 3291113 Res.2394224, 3249436, 2811601 Email: bpmundra2@gmail.com Dated…
Read more

HOW TO, Income Tax-How to

August 13, 2020

Section 28(ii)(a),28(ii)(a) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held on Jul 22, 2020 that the payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till Assessment Year 2003-2004. SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs.CIT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held on Jul 22, 2020 that the payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till Assessment Year 2003-2004. SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs.CIT SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER…
Read more

28, 28(ii)(a), AY 1995-96, Section 28(ii)(a)

Section 40(a)(ia), 194C: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held on Jul 29, 2020 that the provisions of Section 194C were indeed applicable and the assessee-appellant was under obligation to deduct the tax at source in relation to the payments made by it for hiring the vehicles for the purpose of its business of transportation of goods. Against the assessee.SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Section 40(a)(ia), 194C: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held on Jul 29, 2020 that the provisions of Section 194C were indeed applicable and the assessee-appellant was under obligation to deduct the tax at source in relation to the payments made by it for…
Read more

194C, 40(a)(ia), AY 2005-06, In favour of Revenue, Supreme Court

Demonetisation, Section 115BBE, 69, 154, 133A- ITAT- Jaipur- on 9 June, 2020 held that ‎the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements ‎of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of ‎the Act when provisions of section 69 have been invoked by the Assessing officer while ‎passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) and at the same time, he has failed to apply the rate of ‎tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. ACIT… vs Shri Sudesh Kumar Gupta, Alwar. In ‎Favour of the assessee ‎

Section 115BBE, 69, 154, 133A- ITAT- Jaipur- on 9 June, 2020 held that the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act when provisions of section 69 have been…
Read more

115BBE, 133A, 154, 69, AY 2017-18, In Favour of Assessee, Jaipur Tribunal

Section 54F, 139(4) ITAT, Jaipur on 6th march, 2020 Respectfully following the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shankar Lal Saini [2018] 89 taxmann.com 235(Raj) held that even amount deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme before filing of return u/s 139(4) shall also be allowed for deduction as per provisions of sub- section 4 of section 54F of the Act. Smt. Renu Jain, New Delhi vs Ito. AY 2011-12

मान लीजिए किसी करदाता को आवासीय कैपिटल गेन हुआ AY 2018-19 में। वह करदाता सैलरी से आय प्राप्त करता है। धारा 139(1) आयकर रिटर्न भरने की ड्यू डेट की तारीख नौकरी वालों के लिए 31 जुलाई, 2019 है। लोंग टर्म…
Read more

139, 139(1), 139(4), 54, 54(2), 54F, 54F(4), AY 2011-12, In Favour of Assessee, Jaipur Tribunal

Rule 3A r.w.s sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (2) of section 17 How to get a hospital approved so that tax exemptions can be obtained by employee for medical costs incurred by employer in the prescribed treatment.

Rule 3A r.w.s sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (2) of section 17 How to get a hospital approved so that tax exemptions can be obtained by employee for medical costs incurred by…
Read more

17(2)(vi)proviso (ii)(b), 3A Rule, Articles, Rule 3A

Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee

153C, AY 2009-10, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure