Answers to queries on legal issues
| Time limit to issue order u/s 148A | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Time limit to issue order u/s 148A |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | Ranidas Bothara |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Section 148A(d) |
| Date: | May 31, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
U/s 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, the AO has to pass the order within one month from the end of the month in which your client's reply was received. As the reply was filed in April 2026, the AO has till 31st May 2026 to pass the order. (read more)
|
| KOLKATA ITAT DECISIONS ON CLERICAL ERROR IN FORM 3CD | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | KOLKATA ITAT DECISIONS ON CLERICAL ERROR IN FORM 3CD |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | Ambar Nath Majumdar |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Mistake apparent |
| Date: | May 31, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
The judgement in Deepak Kumar vs. CPC, Bengaluru (ITAT Patna Bench at Kolkata) in I.T.A. No.: 55/PAT/2025, Assessment Year: 2017-18 holds that a clerical/inadvertent mistake in the original Form 3CD cannot lead to adjustments/additions under section 143(1) without proper opportunity to the assessee. It can be downloaded from the official website of the ITAT. Deepak… (read more)
|
| tax applicable guidance required | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | tax applicable guidance required |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | D.K. UPADHAY |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Capital Gains, redevelopment |
| Date: | May 31, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
The redevelopment in 2015 has converted the tenancy into an ownership flat. This is treated as acquiring a new asset in exchange for surrendering tenancy rights. As you held the new flat for more than 24 months, it will be a LTCG. The FMV of the tenancy rights + the amount paid for parking +… (read more)
|
| hearing date | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | hearing date |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | Milind joshi |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | ITAT |
| Date: | May 28, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
You can check the case status at https://itat.gov.in/judicial/casestatus if you are not able to go to the ITAT's office. (read more)
|
| Sec 56(2)(x) of Income Tax Act | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Sec 56(2)(x) of Income Tax Act |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | Nilesh Parikh |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | redevelopment |
| Date: | May 28, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
The transaction here is an "exchange". U/s 50, the consideration for the transferred shop (FMV of the new shop) will have to be reduced from the WDV of the block of assets. The new shop will have to be added to the block. The surplus, if any, will have to be offered to tax. As… (read more)
|
| Capital gain tax on family settlement. | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Capital gain tax on family settlement. |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | SANJAY GUPTA |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Capital Gains, relinquishment |
| Date: | May 28, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
Yes. A relinquishment for consideration is a transfer of a capital asset and will attract capital gains. The cost paid by the father and his period of holding will be deemed to be the cost and holding period of the brothers. (read more)
|
| Release deed of huf property real sister to real brother in Maharashtra understand at concessional stamp duty. | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Release deed of huf property real sister to real brother in Maharashtra understand at concessional stamp duty. |
| Category: | Allied Law |
| Asked by: | Anuradha Gandhi |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Stamp Duty |
| Date: | May 28, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
In my view it would qualify under Article 52 as a release concerning ancestral or joint family property. In this case, HUF property is held as joint family assets and should qualify as ancestral property for stamp duty purposes. The daughter constitutes a female coparcener. She is relinquishing her undivided share/interest in this HUF property… (read more)
|
| Capital gain question | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Capital gain question |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | kollipara sundaraiah |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Capital Gains, Gift |
| Date: | May 28, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
In the hands of the donor, a gift will not give rise to capital gains as it is not a "transfer" u/s 47(iii). In the hands of the recipient, gifts from relatives are exempt u/s 56(2). Daughter-in-law qualifies as a relative. The cost and holding period of the donor will be deemed to be that… (read more)
|
| STAMP DUTY ON RELEASE DEED IN MAHARASHTRA ON DEATH OF OWNER and whether release deed by legal heir of parent who owns the immovable and who has expired in favour of Hindu Undivided Family of legal heirs will attract stamp duty of only Rs.500/-and registration fee of Rs.1000/- in Maharashtra? | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | STAMP DUTY ON RELEASE DEED IN MAHARASHTRA ON DEATH OF OWNER and whether release deed by legal heir of parent who owns the immovable and who has expired in favour of Hindu Undivided Family of legal heirs will attract stamp duty of only Rs.500/-and registration fee of Rs.1000/- in Maharashtra? |
| Category: | Allied Law |
| Asked by: | NILESH PARIKH |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Release deed, Stamp Duty |
| Date: | May 2, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
Under Article 52 of Schedule I to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, a release deed (relinquishment deed) for ancestral property executed by or in favour of specified close blood relatives (or their legal heirs) without consideration attracts a nominal stamp duty of ₹200. However, in your case, the property is not "ancestral" but is self-acquired… (read more)
|
| Case laws in favour of assesse – 273B | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Case laws in favour of assesse – 273B |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Asked by: | S V NAGARAJ |
| Answered by: | Law Intern |
| Tags: | Section 273B |
| Date: | May 2, 2026 |
| Excerpt of answer: |
S. 273B refers to "reasonable cause" which depends on the facts of the case. Amongst the landmark judgements, you can consider Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) which is a foundational judgment on penalties. The Supreme Court held that penalty is not automatic for every breach. It is a… (read more)
|