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

Tag Archive: 1973

B.P.Mundra > 1973

On what ground Bail is granted in the case of alleged evasion of GST? HIGH COURT OF DELHI passed the Order date 14 Nov, 2020 in the czse of SHISH AGGRAWAL vs. CGST.

 430 total views

 430 total views SHISH AGGRAWAL vs. CGST HIGH COURT OF DELHI HARPREET SINGH, LD SR. SPP, HARSH SETHI AND SARVAPRIYA MAKKAR, LD COUNSEL Application received from the court of Ld ACMM-1/PHC/NDD as Ld. Duty MM on 13.11.2020 Order date 14 Nov,…
Read more

1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 437

November 25, 2020

Categories

  • Articles (57)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (55)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (1)
  • GST (56)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (40)
  • Income Tax (251)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (2)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (5)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)

    • Archives

    • 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

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