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

Tag Archive: PENALTY

B.P.Mundra > PENALTY

Question: Whether penalty u/s 270A can be saved for deduction claimed as business deductible expenditure for payment of Cess on income tax and surcharge in any previous year?

 141 total views

 141 total views Question: Whether penalty u/s 270A can be saved for deduction claimed as business deductible expenditure for payment of Cess on income tax and surcharge in any previous year?   Key words: Penalty u/s 270A, 270A, Penalty, penalty u/s 270A can…
Read more

155 155(18), 270A, 40

September 30, 2022

Question: Consequences of Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT – Delhi in the case of Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-15, New Delhi on 13 May, 2022

 181 total views

 181 total views Question: Consequences of Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT – Delhi in the case of  Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-15, New Delhi on 13 May, 2022     Answer:…
Read more

271(1)(c), AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, Cases Income tax, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Income Tax

May 17, 2022

Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11 May, 2022. Answer: Penalty Quashed.

 261 total views

 261 total views Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11…
Read more

271E, Ahmedabad Tribunal, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16, AY 2016-17, In Favour of Assessee

May 16, 2022

Whether Penalty u/s 272a(2)(e) imposed is justified for Late / Non-filing of ITR when the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that ITR was not required to file since its incomes is exempt under s. 10(23C)(iiiab)? ITAT Jaipur passed the order on this issue on 24 May, 2021. For full order kindly click the link to get full order.

 543 total views

 543 total views Whether Penalty u/s 272a(2)(e) imposed is justified for Late / Non-filing of ITR when the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that ITR was not required to file since its incomes is exempt under s. 10(23C)(iiiab)? ITAT Jaipur passed…
Read more

10(23C)(iiiab), 11, 12, 139(4A), 272A(2)(e0, 273B, In Favour of Assessee, Jaipur Tribunal

January 18, 2022

ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO

 228 total views

 228 total views ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether…
Read more

271(1)(c), 271(1)(c), AY 2009-10, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c), penalty proceeding/s 271(1)(c) pending

March 24, 2020

जिस का टर्नओवर 50 करोड़ से ज्यादा है उन्हें डिजिटल पेमेंट सिस्टम इंस्टॉल करना पड़ेगा तथा वह सिस्टम चालू हो जाए इसकी व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी अगर 31 जनवरी 2020 तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं होती है तो धारा 271DB प्रोविजन के आधार पर ₹5000 रोज की पेनल्टी लगाई जा सकती है

 497 total views

 497 total views जिस का टर्नओवर 50 करोड़ से ज्यादा है उन्हें डिजिटल पेमेंट सिस्टम इंस्टॉल करना पड़ेगा तथा वह सिस्टम चालू हो जाए इसकी व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी अगर 31 जनवरी 2020 तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं होती है तो धारा 271DB…
Read more

271DB

January 29, 2020

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)